mcbethr

I have used one, but took it off. It doesn't feel right to me. I tend to prefer wooden rifles anyway... I think the foregrip helps with a "natural fighting stance," or so I've heard some people claim. I also think it's necessary for controlling automatic fire, which is why you've seen it on submachine guns that were designed for CQB like the early Thompson. I don't think you will be firing on automatic any time soon, though. It's also a very convenient place to tape the remote switch for a tactical light or laser. Just squeeze the foregrip and the light goes on. Bottom line, you can get a cheap one for $25. Buy it and install it. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, someone will buy it off you.

Short answer... I don't think so unless you own property here. I would assume that a hotel could be considered your property if you were staying there. I think you may be able to bring a longarm here (hunters do all the time), but they may have an out of state FID card, but I could be wrong. I think the #1 goal of this state is revenue and there are plenty of people who want to hunt ducks, turkey and deer here in New Jersey. I think that is why the state hasn't restricted longarms the way they have restricted handguns. But for the Long answer: watch this video and share it with your friends: Else, leave the gun at home and enjoy our state. We've got great beaches and diners and you don't have to pump your own gas.

Not while I still have breath in my lungs, brother. Watch me. I just want Larry David to play me when they come out with the movie about our success... it's all I ask.

Both are fine guns, but take the Glock 19 into consideration. You will only be able to get 10 round factory Glock 17 magazines. If you go with the Glock 19, you get a more compact gun, and 15 rounds in each magazine.

Actually, I've spent the past four and a half hours doing exactly that by working on a strategy to drum up 24 Senate and 48 Assembly votes to get a RKBA Amendment in the NJ Constitution. I have a working model now that can run a number of strategic simulations. It also shows how we can specifically target politicians that are at risk of having their seats turned over in the next election (assuming a variance between 5% and 15%). It's a little more productive than screaming into the internet, I suppose, although not as much fun as playing catch with my kids. Off to bed for me. Plenty of 2A work to do tomorrow and not much time left in which to do it.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me. -Martin Niemöller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Germany, 1937 Maybe you have to be a Jew like me to fully understand why fighting is important: None of us here are risking jail time. We are not risking deportation. We are not risking the loss of our homes or families. We are not risking our lives, fortunes and sacred honor. All that we are risking is the loss of some time and maybe a little bit of money. Odds are the money you will spend on a lawyer would equate to roughly one year of shooting if you go every other weekend. It's a pittance in the big scheme of things. I spent seven hours researching and developing my Excel spread sheet that proved that we could (theoretically) have close to enough votes to put a right to bear arms in a ballot question. I still have to do more research over the past three elections to find districts that have close election fights so that we can target a campaign to the right Democratic legislatures. Then I have to throw this all into a presentation for NJ2AS and develop a theoretical strategy. I have to do all of this by the 7th of June. I'm going to miss my kids little league games, putting them to bed, watching a movie with them, and playing catch. And I have to do all of this while holding down a job and trying to be a husband and father. Is it easier to roll over and hope someone else fights? Of course it is, but I've made my choice. I made it when Assemblyman Greenwald tried to take a way my 15 round magazines and I took a day off of work, went to his office in Voorhees and made my case. I don't know if it helped, but we still have 15 round magazines today. My only regret is that it took that magazine ban to wake me up. What could I have done if I had woken up sooner? I want to be able to look my son in the eye and tell him that I did everything I could. I fought.

If I have to follow the law, they have to follow the laws too. In that case, I say fight it, but don't fight it alone. NJ2AS was designed for this sort of thing. Now that being said, this is the internet, I don't know you, and I've never met you in person. If there is anything in your background that could have come up, I would fess up to that now. Else, fight. If Patterson was correct and you are not a prohibited person, don't worry about the money for a lawyer. The community has a way of coming together on stuff like this. PM me.

This is a tough one. If you were selling a Glock 19. I would suggest putting it on the forums at $400 and someone with a permit will pick it up. It's easier to turn over low cost guns than high cost guns. Someone is always has $400 for a Glock 19. But you have a perfect storm with this gun. You have to find a guy who has a pistol permit and someone who has $2,000 ready. It's tough enough finding the former. It will be really tough finding the latter. And if you have the $2,000 why wouldn't you just buy new? If you can afford a $1,800 gun, you can afford a $2000 gun. One of the things I've noticed in life is the biggest fear any buyer has is that he is missing an opportunity. The price has to be low enough to inspire greed and want, but high enough to make back some of your money. I would put it up for $1600. It's low enough for someone who is considering a Kimber to jump at it. Yes, you lose out on $400, but you will lose more if you sell it to a gun store.

IMHO, it's one of the main problems. We basically have no constitutional protections to point to and say: "Oh, no you don't." I think that the other problem was the 1966 FID law, which was one of those things that was a pretty good idea at the time. It was basically the first background check law. I have no problem with background checks for prohibited people. But I think the card and associated paperwork discouraged people to purchase firearms in the first place. I know a couple of people who are interested in purchasing a gun, but darn it, they just don't feel like doing the paperwork and dealing with the hassle. If you have fewer gun owners, you have fewer chances for non-gun owners to get into the sport. So I think the requirements for an FID are the other problem. All that being said, I really wouldn't have that much of a problem with the FID if it only took 30 days. But... this is one of those cases where we gave the government an inch and they took a mile. If the ID card takes 31 days, or 3 days or 6 months... who do you complain to? The government? For lack of a term, NJ made us. NJ2AS and Gun for Hire Radio are twin children of the state's arrogance.

Ok, I've done the math, although I'm not going to publish it just yet until I put a presentation together and the people at NJ2AS decide what to do. Basically, if we assume that all Republicans will vote Yes and all Democrats who voted yes for Pension reform will vote yes, we are 2 votes short in the Senate and 1 vote short in the Assembly. This assumes that Senator Fred "OGAM" Madden will vote yes and Senator Brian Stack will vote No regardless. So we'll see. I have to do a power point presentation with the strategy, but we are very, very close.

If... If I had a crystal ball, I would be a wealthy man... Depends on how bad we lose. If we lose by a 3 to 1 margin, it will be proof that the people of the state prefer the laws just the way they are. And honestly, it could pave the way for new restrictions because it is obvious that the people want it. If we lose by a slimmer margin, we'll get vilified in the papers but that's probably about it. There will be plenty of "I told you so's..." but that's about it. But I can't go on "what if we lose." Right now, doing nothing is sure to give us no results any time soon, and waiting for the Supreme Court could take years. We can't rely on the federal government. We have to rely on us.

Guys... Let's stay on topic. I've already spoken with Frank from NJ2AS. I'm getting some stuff together and working on a little math. I'm going to report back to him later. Listen, 236 years ago a bunch of guys bet their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor on splitting from the most powerful nation on earth. I don't think that the Continental Army was ever more than 20,000 strong at any given time, but this Army of brave amateurs managed to beat the most professional army on the planet. I imagine that George Washington had a couple of doubts as he was signing his own death warrant and sending it off to the king. Here is what I know. I don't have to pledge my life like George Washington. All I have to do is make a few excel spreadsheets and a power point presentation - stuff that I'm actually quite good at. I don't have to pledge my fortune - only a little time and gas money. And I don't have to beat the toughest army in the world - I only have to convince 24 senators and 48 assemblymen to send this to a ballot measure. I have my hope pinned on how all of the South Jersey Democrats defected over pension reform and supported Governor Christie The fact is that the South Jersey Democrats will do whatever Senator Sweeny and Chairman Norcross tell them to do. There is where we have hope. Then we have to convince the people - but one problem at a time here. Heck, only 27% of the electorate showed up to vote in the last election and of that 400,000 didn't even answer the ballot question. Which means that with 1.2 million gun owners in this state, we have a chance. We have an honest to G-d shot at this.

Well, their numbers were within a few percentage points of the other numbers. So I'm inclined to believe that it is about right, although I'm willing to go with 14% as my baseline since I think ownership is trending up in general. I suppose we could commission a telephone poll to get better numbers, but that would take at least $1,500 and I would need to clear it with my wife.

Theoretically easy. We get an Assemblyman or Senator to propose one and then they vote on it. A proposed amendment can be passed by simple majority in two separate legislative sessions, or by a 60% supermajority vote of one session. Then it's on the ballot for the people to propose. There are three balot measures that could be up for voting in 2012. One is a Judaical Pay referendum. The other changes laws on bail. The third is a veto referendum on gay marriage.

You are a little new here, so I can understand your statement. Welcome to the forum. From your previous posts, it also seems like you are in Law Enforcement. Thank you for your service. None of us have the right to keep and bear arms in this state. There is no right to bear arms in our state's constitution. If I had a right to bear arms, I would not have to ask permission from my police department. All guns are banned in New Jersey unless you are exempted from the ban. That little card exempts you from the ban, but that card is issued out by the whim of the municipality or the state police. If you have to ask for something, it is not a right. Maybe I wouldn't feel this way if the FID process was uniformly applied and only took 30 days, but it doesn't. And remember what Martin Luther King said: "A right delayed is a right denied?" The way I see it, that is the one thing holding us back. There is no amendment for a judge to show a lawyer and say: "See, it's right there." Theoretically, any idiot can do that now as long as he has the patients to go through the FID process. But you are using an emotional argument rather than a constitutional one. I'm sure people in Alabama said to their kids: "Would you really feel safe going to school with black children?" The Constitution is not a buffet we don't get to pick and choose the laws we want. I'm sure your job as a police office would be a lot easier if we didn't have the 4th Amendment and you could search anybody you wanted on a whim or a mild suspicion. But I'm not sure anyone would want to give that up, including you. No, but I have seen citizens who treasure their freedom.

I think there are a lot of very silent people. They are called hunters. When I think of New Jersey hunters I'm reminded of what the Cyclops said to Odysseus: "Because you have pleased me, I will eat you last." They will roll over on any gun bill as long as it doesn't effect their shotguns. Notice the carve-outs for 12 and 20 gauge ammo, which you can buy without an FID? Notice how you can drive around with an unloaded shotgun with no specific destination. That stuff has to be in the law so that hunters can actually hunt in NJ. Based on qualitative analysis, I've noticed that some people would never own a gun, and some would consider it, but don't want to do the paperwork. It is certainly possible for a minority of people in the state to pass a ballot measure. Heck - our turnout in this state is pathetic, and that could work to our advantage - and how many people even vote on the ballot question? I think that many don't even read it. But we are getting ahead of ourselves - the real trick is doing the math to get this on the ballot in the first place. I think it can be done. I'm going to have to work up an Excel spread sheet with numbers first, though...

I haven't gone through every single record since 1966, but I don't think I need to. Look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/interactives/guns/ownership.html and this: http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/9841-percent-firearms-ownership-state.html and this: http://www.vpc.org/press/1110gundeath.htm I'm willing to compromise at 12%, but that still puts our numbers at over 1 million.

Firearm ownership in NJ is roughly between 12% and 14%. If you take the high end (and I'm willing to err on the high end because there are plenty of guns that have been passed down or stored in dresser drawers since the 1960's), you get: 8,700,000 * 0.14 = 1,218,000 That's where I get the number.

And let me toss some other stuff out there... We had a big win just a few months ago by squashing the backdoor ammo ban in committee. I'm reminded about that old story of the monkey and the fire hose. I don't know if its apocryphal, but there is a story about research scientists who put a bunch of bananas at the top of a pole and put a bunch of monkeys in a room with the pole. Whenever a monkey tried to climb the pole to get to the bananas, the scientists sprayed him with a fire hose. Pretty soon, the monkeys stopped trying to climb the poll. When scientists introduced a new monkey into the group, and he tried to climb the poll, the other monkeys tried to keep him off the poll. Then scientists started to slowly remove the old monkeys and introduce new ones, and the monkeys still joined together and prevented each other from climbing the poll, even though the total population of monkeys had never been sprayed. The moral of the story? Maybe we've been beaten down so much that we are like those monkeys and afraid to even try. But what do we lose if we do try? A little bit of time? I am a die-hard Democrat, but I think I'm turning more and more Libertarian every day. Crossing your fingers and hoping that the Federal government will help hasn't done anything for us and our rights since 1966. Heller and McDonald started locally. Sure, we have Muller (or whatever it is called now), but if going through the courts is bottom-up, maybe we also need a top down legislative approach?

I agree with you that NJ is like 1962 Alabama. But we have a couple of things now that we didn't have just a few years ago: * We have Senator Sweeny who has Gubernatorial or federal senate ambitions. * We have have a Governor who has federal ambitions and needs some kind of pro-2A record. * We have a Governor and a South Jersey power broker (Norcross) who are working together on this Rowan / Rutgers merger * We have mass of democratic South Jersey legislators who defected from the party and voted for pension reform * We have our own Dr. Martin Luther King in Anthony Colandro and Gun For Hire Radio which has national reach. Now as to the question as to whether most NJ residents think that guns are for criminals and psychos... well, maybe not. How many people have you taken to the range who resolved to get their FID, but stopped because the process was just too much of a pain? I personally know a guy who has had his FID application sitting on his kitchen table for 18 months now - he's just doesn't want to be bothered with the paperwork. There may be a silent majority out there who don't own a gun, but think that they could go and buy one if they ever needed to - and they don't even know that they can't without an FID. Heck, back in 2002 when I first applied for my FID, I didn't even know you needed one. I just thought you went to the gunstore and bought a gun. I wasn't anti-gun. I just didn't really think of guns until my house got broken into. In other words, there may be a majority of people out there who have no problem with gun ownership - they just personally don't own one and don't care to do so - but like the idea of being able to buy one. And here's why I think we can pull this off: Back in 2011, we had a public question for a constitutional amendment which legalized sports betting. The results were 671,797 for to 379,339 against. We have roughly 1.2 million gun owners in this state. The math is on our side for the public question... the real question is whether we can get it on the ballot.

I don't think it would mean that wee were screwed. We still have federal protection, although it could embolden politicians to enact more legislation because the vote could be considered a popular referendom on gun rights in general. But hoping things will get better isn't exactly the best recipe for change. George Washington and John Adams were screwed if they lost. I think all we would have to lose is the time we put into the project. Quick edit. I may have to do some math on this one, but I think we could pull it off. Think about it. Senator Sweeny is the real key here, and he wants to be governor, or possibly replace Senators Menendez or Lautenberg one day. If you are a Democrat, you are going to vote for him regardless. If you are a Republican, you may give him a second look if he helped with gun rights. I need to do some math...

Pizza Bob's agitating got me thinking... It only takes 24 votes in the Senate and 48 votes in the Assembly to get a constitutional amendment put on the ballot in New Jersey. In the Senate there are 24 Democrats and 16 Republicans. There are 48 Democrats and 32 Republicans in the General Assembly. Why haven't we ever considered the possibility of getting a RKBA amendment put on a ballot measure for New Jersey voters? Remember NJ2AS's idea for an RKBA NJ amendment: "The people have the right to bear arms for defense of self, family, home and state and for hunting and recreational use." Well, if my calculations are right, if we assume all Republicans will vote for the amendment, we would only need to pick up 8 Democrats in the senate and 16 in the house. This might be possible. I'm sure Senators Sweeny and Van Drew would be behind it on the Democratic side. There are a couple of others like Assemblymen Nelson Albano and Matt Milam who would get behind it as well. South Jersey Democrats already defected on pension reform. Maybe its possible to get them to defect on this issue as well? And the idea is somewhat innocuous. We are not asking for anything scary, just a state reflection of a federal right. If anything, it could get people talking, and it would become a linchpin for future court cases. What do you guys think? Why hasn't this approach been tried before?

Maybe... but I'm thinking holistically. I took a quick look at Wikipedia (if it is accurate) and it seems like the Venezuelan Army uses the Browning Hi Power and Sig P226 (so they must have standardized on 9mm). They also use the FAL and AK as battle rifles and the UZI as the sub machine gun. I think that if you have the money, a 5.56 M4-like carbine is a better tactical bet. It's small enough to carry around in a truck, but big enough to reach out to 300 yards if you have to. Again, I took a look at Wikipedia and it seems like the Venezuela National Guard is sort of like the Mexican Federales or French Gendarmes, or the NJ State Police on Steroids. They are an internal security force that can act as a supplement to the Army. So there you go - bunch of guys guarding checkpoints. I wouldn't be surprised if Hugo Chavez uses it is a sort of loyalist Army like Hitler did with the Brownshirts. But from a training standpoint, if this is a sort of hybrid police force, they would be able to train with the CX4 on indoor ranges that are rated for pistol rather than go through the expense of bussing these guys to outdoor military ranges and such. Of course I'm speculating here as to how they are using the CX4, but I do see uses for it in an internal security role.

The CX4 is very interesting little gun. I've shot a full auto MP-5 before and I think that the CX4 actually wins out over that gun for many purposes: #1. Last round bolt hold-open #2. Full ambidextrous operation. #3. Costs less and the magazines are less expensive. #4. Fist-meets-fist, even at night and when you are exhausted. It reloads naturally like an UZI. #5. Swaps magazines with the PX4 or Beretta M9. I don't know what Venezuela uses as their sidearm. Disadvantages: I don't think you can put a suppressor on it like the MP5, but maybe you could thread the barrel. No full-auto mode, but there is with the MX4 Storm. I'm not sure if these are MX4 Storms or not. I know the Indian Border Patrol picked that as their carbine. In all honesty, it wouldn't be a bad weapon for Military Police or rear-echelon forces such as truck drivers or communications personnel. Bullets cost money. Training costs money. Something like a CX4 that can be fired inside pistol-rated indoor ranges may win in a contract over other carbine-type weapons like an M4 or P90. I don't know if I would want to go into combat with a CX4, but if I was guarding a checkpoint or driving a truck, I wouldn't feel undergunned.

Heck, am I wrong? I'm not trying to get any war drums beating. The Glock 19 is the Honda Accord of striker fired firearms. It's a fine pistol, but I can think of only two companies right now that re genuinely innovating - one is Ruger, who seems to drop a revolutionary new product roughly every six minutes (who doesn't want a takedown 10/22?) the other is Kel Tec, who has been innovating for years now, and whose KSG displays genuine outside the box thinking... if you can find it. I would call the NANO innovative due to its internal modular frame - it's everything a single stack Glock is supposed to be except that it exists and the Glock single stack 9mm never will because "Das Glock est Perfection, ihre hand ist das problem!" So this upstart from the UAE comes along and introduces a striker-fired pistol with a rail and a low bore-axis. I don't see anybody tossing their Glocks away for this one unless the UAE makes their local police and military units use it. I'm not sure what the Civilian laws for gun ownership are in the UAE (I think Kuwait and Saudi are fairly permissive) but there may be a civilian market there. But I just can't see much to get excited about with this pistol.