PDM

I received an email from the NJCSD (NJ coalition for self-defense) stating that they have decided to 'mothball' the NJCSD. When I became interested in 2A issues in NJ years ago this was the only grassroots organization in the state. Unfortunately, they weren't able to execute and have been defunct ever since the NJ2AS came on the scene. They never achieved a fraction of the success of the NJ2AS, probably due to the personalities of those involved and their inability to organize and rally support. I don't think they ever got much beyond a small online forum and a handful of supporters. But I give them credit for trying and starting the fight in this state.

LCR is light and has a great trigger but it really isn't any fun to shoot. If you want a comfortable carry gun that can fit in a pocket or IWB and is still fun to shoot try a kahr cw9. I have the pm9 - basically the same gun with a few bells and whistles but outside your price range - and it's a great gun.

5'6" and 200 lbs! Wow. I'm 510 and 175 and I still feel like I could lose a few.

Actually, it's a great AR for anyone for any purpose. It stood me quite well in 2 urban carbine classes. Dead on accurate and I haven't had a single problem or hiccup with over 1000 rounds through it -- lack of a forward assist and dust cover seem completely irrelevant for any intended use outside of combat or harsh hunting environments (and probably would do fine there as well). I mounted a magpul forend and vertical grip, a Viking tactics light holder, and a basic Eotech giving me a fully equipped AR with a quality optic for around $1000 all in. (I prefer not having a compensator on it -- obnoxiously loud unnecessary for a .556 IMO) and It is absolutely perfect for my needs. I simply don't see the point of spending any more than that.

I wouldn't call a seawall "intrusive". This isn't the same issue as gun control, soda control, or other nanny state activities that Bloomberg is so fond of. It's a question of cost/benefit analysis -- what are the risks of future catastrophic storm and the projected cost of such a storm (in terms of lives lost and property damage) weighed against the cost and effectiveness of a seawall. Preparing for natural disasters through building codes or infrastructure is not necessarily a bad thing, It just needs to be done in a smart way.

AR + HK p2000 in 40sw.

What's amazing to me is that it doesn't look all that different today. It was pretty developed with plenty of large crowds back then.

It's actually pretty clear from Heller and McDonald that the 2A applies outside the home even though that wasn't at issue in the case. They mention carry in conjunction with the 2A right in one spot, and then there is the language about restricting carry in "sensitive place" which strongly implies that the 2A applies in non-sensitive places and that an outright ban on carry -- which is what NJ de facto has even if the statue appears to grant the right -- is unconstitutional. Read Gura's appellate briefs -- it's all spelled out quite clearly. More importantly, at least 2 of the 3 3rd circuit judge came out and openly said during oral arguments that the 2A applies outside the home. Unless they backtrack in their opinion, it appears that the only issue is whether NJ's statute fails under intermediate scrutiny. I think we have a 50/50 chance of winning at the 3rd circuit. I'm not holding my breathe, but oh man it would be great to see the sh*t storm that hits this state if the NJ carry statute is ruled unconstitutional and the legislature is forced to put a law in place like Illinois.

Absolutely amazing. How can anyone have any doubts that this is anything other than pure politics. We know that none of these bills will make a single person in this state one iota safer. But Cryan and the rest have been arguing that all of these gun bills are necessary to save lives. Suddenly, he's concerned about "costs". The entire NJ gun permitting system is an enormous waste of money and resources. Unfortunately, most citizens aren't paying attention and don't care.

Krdshrk -- haven't gotten my package with the key yet. Expect it any day and will let you know as soon as I try it out. I plan on sticking to the bike lanes wherever possible, although it is obviously still somewhat risky. There is a separate bike lane that goes north up 8th avenue and 7th ave has a separate bike lane going downtown. There are several cross streets (one being 54th and I believe 48th as well) that are designated as "bike share" lanes". Of course the cabbies couldn't give 2 sh*ts but at least there are signs posted. The cost structure is terrible for short term use -- seems designed for tourists. But $100 for the year is a great deal even if you only use it 20 times. If it works out I will use it most days the weather is decent.

I commute through port authority and work on third ave in the 50s. I hate the subway and walk every day except in a downpour when I take a bus. I think the bike program is a great idea and signed up for the annual plan which is dirt cheap if you use the bikes regularly. As far as I'm concerned cars should be banned from midtown and cabs severely restricted from 8 to 7. It's a small enoug area to walk, to take public transportation or a bike. I can't stand bloomy but this was a good idea even if it has some kinks to work out. Got to start somewhere.

Total breakdown from economic collapse seems highly unlikely. Even a great depression type scenario, which is not at all unlikely, does not necessarily lead to complete social breakdown. We came through the great depression intact, Germany survived hyperinflation (until Hitler started a world war), there is social unrest in Greece but it has not descended into anarchy, and most countries in the world are much poorer than the US yet manage to hold together as societies. Things may get unpleasant -- perhaps quite unpleasant -- but we are one of the richest countries in the world and I don't forsee a Mad Max scenario from the economy alone. I'm most worried about a severe but localized or regional weather event. For example, imagine if hurricane Sandy had been a category 2 or 3 storm rather than a mild category 1 or tropical storm. Most of NJ would have been without power or gas for months and there might well have been food shortages. I have no doubt there would have been widespread looting and unrest at some point (remember how testy people got after 1 week with gas rationing). Second on my list is a collapse of the electrical grid -- either from terrorist attack or solar flare. That could indeed be a long term SHTF/survivalist scenario. Third is a flu pandemic or bio weapons terror attack. All the other scenarios -- mega volcano, mega east coast tsunami triggered by an landslide in the canary islands, asteroid impact, etc are certainly possible but don't seem as likely.

Protests won't help us. The courts won't help us. Stop saying "wait until it gets to SCOTUS." These issues almost certainly won't. At this point I have serious doubts about whether SCOTUS will even hear a concealed carry case. As others have said, only the voting booth will help us. We must face REALITY. Prevailing in the voting booth in this state -- voting these people out of office AND replacing them with politicians who respect the rights of law abiding citizens -- will be a herculean task. We have zero chance of winning in the voting booth in this state unless our message gets across clearly and effectively. What is that message and how do we get it across? The message CANNOT be "what part of infringe don't you understand" or "laws don't do any good because criminals don't listen to them." Those ultra-libertarian arguments are simplistic and asinine and carry zero weight with most citizens in this state. We need to take a playbook from the antis and STOP being so damned earnest. This is not "compromising". We need to shape our message for maximum impact on the average voter in this state who is probably 1) misinformed on most gun issues, 2) unaware of just how strict NJ gun laws already are and 3) not necessarily opposed to all civilian gun ownership but wants some "reasonable" (in their minds) controls. This is what I think our message should be -- and we, meaning the NJ2AS, ANJRPC, and all of the grassroots members of those organizations need to have a unified, coherent message: 1. First and foremost, we -- the 1 million or so lawful gun owners in this state -- want the same things that everyone does. We are men and women from all walks of life and all professions. We want love our children and want our communities to be safe. 2. We aren't arguing for no gun laws. We are arguing for FAIR and EFFECTIVE gun laws that make sense and respect the rights of law abiding citizens, and only those laws. Laws that are carefully thought through and designed specifically to target criminals and seriously mentally ill people and to aggressively prosecute criminals who use guns and keep them off the streets. 3. The gun control politicians and advocates in this state are being dishonest and are in fact harming the public interest. They are not interested in "gun safety" or public safety because it is clear that the laws they propose will do absolutely nothing to deter or hamper criminals and they distract from the real underlying problems -- economic, social and cultural -- that give rise to violence in our cities. We need -- the ANJRPC and NJ2AS -- needs professional PR/advertising help and an enormous fundraising drive to launch a massive PR and informational campaign across this state in newspapers and on TV. We need polished people that will appeal to joe citizen living in the suburbs.

If someone is strongly anti-gun ownership you probably won't be able to change their mind. 90% of the issue is emotional/ethical/moral, not rational/logical. Many people simplistically view the issue as: guns are designed to kill, guns are bad, you don't need one. My advice is not to discuss it with them, and if you do take a low-key approach. Whatever you do, get as much training as you possibly can. The best place to do that in NJ, IMO, is Gunforhire, but there are other places throughout the state. Take basic pistol and then take as many intermediate and advanced classes as possible. You will be safer and you'll enjoy shooting recreationally much more.

problem is, they've got the system locked up. Weinberg is a political boss and runs a political machine just like tamany hall. I know a guy on the town council who is a businessman in Teaneck and connected with the Dems. When there was an opening for assembly she basically offered it to him. She gets to decide who's in or out. I don't know enough about politics to know just how one goes about breaking that stranglehold but I do no it will take 1) an exceptionally charismatic candidate and 2) lots and lots of money.

The only possibility of change is from the ground up. It's been said before on this forum and it is the truth. As long as a majority of NJ voters are either outright anti-gun or have deluded themselves into believing that all of these measures are just "common sense" we will not make headway. Also, political change is simply not realistic in many districts. For example, last election, in my District 37 (Bergen county towns including Teaneck, Fort Lee, etc) Weinberg is our Senator, and Gordon Johnson and Valerie Huttle are the assemblyman. Every member of the town council of Teaneck is a Democrat. The town rammed through resolutions supporting these bs bills and paid no attention to the few people (very few) who showed up to speak against them. Last election, despite very credible Republican candidates that mounted a good campaign, Weinberg and the rest won by a margin of 3 or 4 to 1. Even with a massive infusion of money to fund a campaign, I doubt a Republican can win. So, I think we need to focus on Districts where wins are possible; continue to introduce as many people to shooting sports and try to win people over one at a time; launch an informational PR campaign focused on common sense highlighting how ridiculous, unfair and ineffective most NJ gun laws are rather than focusing on rights and extreme libertarian politics.

Christie could fix the CCW problem with a stroke of his pen by changing the "justifiable need" definition in the administrative code. We forget sometimes that absent the justifiable need requirement anyone who passed a background check and the training/qualification requirements could carry. Christie likes to pretend that it's all in the hands of the Democratic legislature. It's not. He could fix it if he had the desire and the cojones. Of course, he has neither.

I had an NRA sticker on the back of my car. I enjoyed hearing one of my ultra-liberal neighbors muttering about it. Unfortunately my car was keyed -- twice. Could be coincidence, but I suspect it had something to do with the sticker. I wound up removing it. Just not worth having my car destroyed by somme a-hole.

Most people on this forum seem to have a view of the Second Amendment limited to "what part of 'infringe' don't you understand." That's like describing an automobile as a metal thingy with four wheels. These same people insist that laws have no effect because "criminals don't follow the law." For example, they assert that background checks on private sales could not, by definition, do any good because criminals won't follow them. That's true, but law abiding people selling the guns will so at least in theory private background checks would make it harder for some criminals to buy guns. It's these kind of simplistic, unsophisticated arguments that make it harder to achieve our goals.

Of course cryan can carry. As an undersheriff he is active duty law enforcement.

Assemblyman Cryan: Let's assume, just for arguments sake, that the current law -- which for over 20 years has deemed 15 round magazines to be safe, standard capacity magazines --, must now be changed and the limit reduced to 10 rounds. If these 15 round magazines are now so incredibly dangerous, why was the assembly bill amended at the very last minute to specifically allow retired police officers to keep their 15 round magazines while all other citizens are faced with the choice of destroying them, finding a way to sell them out of state, or become instant felons? If these magazines are now suddenly so dangerous, shouldn't we be trying to get ALL of them out of circulation?! If you will claim that it's because that retired police officers have greater training than mere "ordinary citizens" -- which in many cases is patently not true -- why don't you impose a training requirement for keeping these magazines? In any event, isn't training completely irrelevant when it comes to using a 15 vs a 10 round magazine. For that matter, why should you, a former bartender who became an "undersheriff", be allowed to keep YOUR 15 round magazines. According to many news reports, you have a close family member -- your son -- who was convicted of assault and according to othe recent reports you yourself are of questionable character. Why shouldn't these dangerous "large capacity assault magazines" be kept out of YOUR hands and out of YOUR home in the interest of public safety?

I'll try again. I agree - it's not ok to ban .50 cal and doing so will not save a single life or prevent a single crime. However, as for "justification", from Christie's point of view the "justification" is that doing nothing was not an option. He needed to throw the antis a bone and do so in a way so that it looked like he was doing something, while in reality doing as little as possible. Many of you are purists/absolutists and will slam Christie and say you will never vote for him because he proposed this ban. Fine, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. For me, while we'd all like to have RIck Perry as our Governor and Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham as our Senators, we live in NJ and I'll take Christie over Buono or another Corzine any day.

Did I say I thought a ban on 50BMG is ok or justified because it only affects a few people? What I said was Christie chose the one proposed bill that will impact the fewest people which was tactically a smart move on his part. True, he could have proposed no changes at all, but I am assuming that he is under enormous pressure to do something and I'm guessing he chose the ,50BMG because it will impact very few people and has a lot of BS sensationalist propaganda tied to it. Plus, isn't his proposal to ban future sales but not to confiscate or render guns that are already owned illegal?

Complain all you want and start all of the third, fourth and fifth parties you want. You are not going to do any better than Christie in NJ. Can you name a single NJ governor in recent or not so recent memory who was pro-gun, or even better on guns than Christie? Now, can you name any NJ governors who were worse on guns than Christie? Corzine, McGreevy, Whitman, Florio .... If any of these people were in office now, we'd be facing the almost certain passage of all of the Assembly anti-gun measures, if not more. I'm no saying any of us should be happy about a .50 cal ban or additional FID hassles, nor am I saying that we shouldn't vocally oppose them. But a does of realism is called for. Christie did an impressive job of walking a tightrope (insert joke of choice here). Most of the headlines I've seen tout his new anti-violence package and talk about him "strengthening NJ's already strict gun laws" when in reality we all know his proposals amount to virtually no meaningful change at all. He's deflected much of the criticism from the rabidly anti-gun Democrats in this state by appearing to take action (and he actually did take some sensible action on the mental health front) while proposing a change to NJ law that will impact a sum total of the roughly 10 people in the state who own Barrett rifles. You don't like Christie? He's not Conservative enough for you? Think he's a "RINO". Fine, move to Texas.

Where did he discuss concealed carry?