PDM

Thanks Nick, but no need to bother. I just cancelled my ADT service. It is astounding how bad their customer service is. I explained the issue, and they acknowledged it but were utterly uninterested in seeking some solution, just said that's the way the system works. When I pointed out that if there is a break in it will in the best case scenario take 5 minutes before they call the police, they sort of shrugged their shoulders. They didn't even seem to care that I was cancelling my service after 10 years as a customer. Good riddance.

Yes, this problem started after I "upgraded" to their Pulse system. I am pretty sure I am going to get rid of them now. Was looking at Frontpoint, but seems pricey. My once concern with local vendors is -- who does the monitoring? ADT is a huge company, which has many downsides, but allows them to staff and equip a large monitoring center. Who does the monitoring for Joe the alarm guy?

There was a thread started a few weeks ago on home security systems in which some people bashed ADT. I have had a good experience with ADT over the past 10 years, but am now having some problems. Specifically, when my alarm goes off it takes between 30 seconds to a minute for ADT to receive the signal. This is bizarre. In the past, if I accidentally set off the alarm and immediately disarmed the system, I'd always get a call right away. Now, if I set of the alarm and disarm it within a minute or so, I don't get a call and when I check with ADT they say they didn't get the signal. They tell me this is the way it is intended to work in order to avoid false alarms. That seems like utter BS. The reason they call your home and ask for your passcode is to avoid false alarms. If someone breaks into my home, there is a 30 second delay before the alarm goes off. Then, there is now an additional minute delay after the alaram goes off until ADT gets the signal. Then, they will call my home number. If there is no answer, they call my cell phone. After all this delay, they probably wouldn't wind up calling the police until 5 minutes or more after a break in. Even worse, even if I have my system on "instant" mode at night and someone kicks in my door, they won't get the signal until a minue has elapsed -- an eternity in a home invasion. WTF??! Can anyone tell me how this should work and what the response times are for other monitored alarm systems? Thanks.

I love the way he keeps his ammo in a big bowl and doesn't get too caught up in techno speak, His honesty is refreshing.

Ditto. I have at least one 10 round mag for each of my guns except the Walther PPQ 9mm for which I have not been able to find 10 rd mags. Not defeatist, just prudent. Worst case I have a few extra mags. Best case I have a functional gun in the unfortunate event all my other mags are lost in a tragic boating accident.

We should check to make sure this isn't a mistake. They just had a panel discussion on guns at the exact same place a few weeks ago.

The 7th Circuit denied Illinois' request for rehearing of the carry decision, which means it either gets appealed to the Supremes or Illinois ban on concealed carry is history. At the very least we have a split in the circuits and this will wind up in front of the Supreme Court next year. Will be interesting to see what happens in the 3rd circuit. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-22/illinois-bid-for-rehearing-of-gun-carry-appeal-rejected

I support training as a pre-requisite for CCW but not purchasing a gun for your home. I just don't think the government interest is compelling enough and it is subject to too much abuse. That said, if Sweeney says he's going to support it, I think it makes sense to suggest ways to make that law more rational. For example, the one organization everyone recognizes as having the greatest expertiese in firearms training and safety is the NRA. Thus, if the bill simply requires passing the NRA first steps pistol class (roughly 4 hours) or the equivalent for a long gun (which I think we all agree is not even a bare minimum of training), that might not be such a horrible thing. It certainly would be a boost to local firearms trainers.

Hahahaha. I just turned on the sound and thought I had the wrong website -- listening to some really piss-poor jazz. What, the, f*&k??? "And now, for your listening pleasure, before we give our citizens the shaft, some cool jazz...."

My Senator is Loretta Weinberg and my Assemblyman is Gordon Johnson, both sponsors of the 10 rd mag bill. I sent them faxes once, and I am now done wasting my time with them. I have sent faxes to Christie (and a letter as well) and Sweeney, and I had faxed everyone on the public safety committee and called Mainor's office (quite unpleasant). Will send additional faxes to Sweeney and Christie after today's assembly vote.

I stand corrected. Connecticut Governor Mallow is proposing a 10 round mag capacity limit with no grandfather clause, giving people until October 1 to sell out of state or turn them in to the police.

And keep in mind that every single mag capacity bill, on the Federal level, in Colorado, even NY (!) had a grandfather clause. Only NJ legislators see fit to give their citizens, who for years have carefully abided by the current law, the big "FU" and take their property or turn them into felons at the whim of a few clueless politicians (who conveniently exempt themselves from the law). Again, I am not by any means ok with this bill even with a grandfather clause -- I think it is stupid do nothing legislation. But the lack of such a clause should make it a nonstarter for anyone who cares about fundamental fairness and common sense.

I am 100% certain it will pass the Assembly today -- we just don't have the votes there. I think there is a 30% chance it gets hung up in the Senate if Sweeney pushes back. I think a veto by Christie is 50/50. We all like to talk about how 10 rounds may not be enough for self-defense, how it's easy for an assailant to swap mags or use a different type of gun, etc. All true. But I don't think those arguments hold anywater with people who are anti-gun (like most of the legislature) or neutral (as I believe Christie to be). I continue to believe that it is the lack of a grandfather clause -- the fact that this bill will result in the de facto confiscation of property and possibly rendering legally owned guns useless if no 10 round mags can be found -- could provide the cover for Sweeney and/or Christie to oppose it. If it is amended to include a grandfather clause as a compromise I am 100% certain it would pass.

I truly hope you are right, but I just don't see hime vetoing all of them. In particular, the face to face ammo bill. Try to think about it for a second from a non-gun owner perspective -- someone who doesn't have to deal with the relatively few gun stores in NJ and the high prices of ammo in those stores that you can find. If one accepts that a background check should be required before purchasing a gun -- and virtually everyone does -- is it so unreasonable to require that a person at least be willing to show up at a store and present an ID before purchasing ammo? After all, they are not saying that we can't buy ammo, just that it needs to be purchased in a store, and isn't that a good idea if it will make it harder for criminals to purchase ammunition? Please refraing from flaming me -- I'm just playing devils' advocate and looking at it from "their" side. I fully understand that there are plenty of reasons why this bill probably won't do a damn thing to prevent crime: 1) most criminals don't need to stock up on large quantities of ammo and probably don't or won't spend the $$ to do so; a loaded revolver or one or two magazines is plenty to rob a store or carjack someone; 2) they can still easily drive to PA, buy through a straw purchaser (just like they do with guns) or find some other way to buy it, etc. etc. It's just that on the face of it I think this bill will have a lot of appeal and Christie will have a hard time vetoing it.

I am most definitely going to mention the grandfather clause issue -- in fact I already did in a letter to Governor Christie. While I oppose the bill even with a grandfather clause, the lack of one highlights not just our politicians' disregard for the Second Amendment and common sense, it also shows that they have no concerns ahout fundamental fairness and property rights. I think that should make it an easier veto target for the governor.

So here is the language added to A1239, the 10 round mag capacity bill that will be up for vote tomorrow. They exempt retired LEOs that have a carry permit. Of course, begs the question, what about a grandfather clause for everyone else? What possible rationale could there be for this. And you can see they generously gave us 90 days after the law takes effect to comply. So outrageous, it defies words. 112 2. (New section) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection 13 j. of N.J.S.2C:39-3, a retired law enforcement officer who is 14 authorized to possess and carry a handgun pursuant to subsection l. 15 of N.J.S.2C:39-6 may possess and carry a large capacity 16 ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds 17 of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic handgun.1 18 19 1[2.] 3.1 20 This act shall take effect on the first day of the third 21 month following enactment.

What does "grandfathers are born every day" mean? You think they will add one to the bill?

The one hope I hold out regarding the 10 round mag bill is the lack of a grandfather clause. The federal bill has one, and even the ridiculous NY bill allows people to keep their 10 round mags, they just can't load more than 7 (which is comical, but at least better than turning people's property into contraband). Only NJ says f-you to its citizens and, on a whim, turns people who bent over backwards to comply with the law into instant felons if they don't sell (if they can) or otherwise destroy their property. If he wants to he can make a very reasonable argument as to why he won't sign the bill.

He will sign some of these laws. He has to. He will be painted as an extremist if he doesn't. My wild guess is that he signs the face to face ammo bill and the redundant background check bill and maybe a few others but picks one to veto -- perhaps the 10 round mag capacity bill (he already indicated he was sceptical of that at his press conference).

Excellent point vlad. I had forgotten that basic fact. I suppose one could compile a statistic of percentage of non-Leo's and non-armored guards whose applications are granted which would likely be close to zero (other than a few politicians) but I don't know if that information is available.

The Ethical Culture Society was founded in the late 19th or early 20th centure by a Reform Rabbi. It is a fairly small group. However, it's views permeate "liberal" denominations of Judaism and Christianity. For example, Reform and Conservative Jewish groups invariably adopt the same far-left, progressive agenda and claim that is consistent with Jewish values (it isn't). Similarly, many mainline Protestant denominations adopt left-wing social and political positions. They're all pretty much the same in their views and equally well-intentioned but misguided.

Rehearing en banc is very rare. Something along the line of 1% or 2% of requests for rehearing are granted I believe. I think just the fact that the 3rd circuit clearly will hold that the 2A applies outside the home is huge. The simple fact is that the NJ statute, as applied, acts as an absolute bar on carrying a firearm outside the home so the analysis shouldn't be that hard under intermediate scrutiny. I wish Gura had been prepared with some clear statistics showing that permits are never granted except to particular classes of people (retired police, armored car guards (limited permits), and politicians).

I am amazed that not one single person in this thread, or at the hearing, raised the one point that should embarass these self-serving political hacks more than anything else: WHY ARE THEY EXEMPTED FROM THE MAG LIMIT BILL. The proposed amendment would exempt retired LEO, such as Mainor and Cryan. WHY??? There is no logical reason for this, even if you accept their own faulty logic. Let's go through it step by step: They are arguing that because of Newtown, anything more than 10 rounds presents too great a public safety risk. That argument is faulty for a large number of reasons: 1) there is zero evidence that even if Lanza had 10 round mags the result would be any different (Cryan's analysis at the hearing was absurd -- Lanza had plenty of time in that situation to shoot and swap mags repeatedy) ; 2) even if there were some evidence that fewer people would have been killed had he used 10 round mags, there is also the counterveiling consideration that being limited to 10 rounds could cost someone their life in a self-defense situation; 3) a future shooter could use any number of other weapons and accomplish the same result -- if God forbid someone goes on a shooting rampage with a pump shotgun will we ban those next?? But, let's just accept their rationale for a moment. If anything more than 10 rounds is dangerous because a maniac or criminal could get their hands on one (eg by stealing them or taking one from a family member as Lanza did), then NO ONE SHOULD HAVE THEM. Why is anyone exempted? So, we should be arguing: 1) This bill should not be passed at all because there is zero empirical evidence that it will improve public safety (conjecture and emotionalism is not enough); 2) if you do pass it, there must at least be a grandfather clause so that law abiding people don't have their property taken and in any event everyone -- LEOs and citizens -- should be treated equally.

I think compromise is the wrong word. I used to think, naively, that compromise was possible. But compromise assumes that the other side is operating in good faith. They aren't. It assumes that the other side is acting rationally. They aren't. People like Cryan and Mainor are self-serving, opportunistic, inept, lowlifes, plain and simple. As others have pointed out, this is largely a political ploy to put the screws to Governor Christie. There is no compromising with them. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be smart. Knowing that they and their cohorts will do everything in their power to ram through the 10 round limit, if I were in the Assembly I would make the following argument if it became clear that we didn't have the votes to prevent the bill from passing: "No logical justification has been given for the change to the 10 round limit from the longstanding 15, and the change will do nothing to enhance public safety but will impede on the ability of law abiding people to defend themselves, and I oppose it. However, the amendment to the bill allowing retired police officers -- including many members of this Assembly -- to keep their 15 round magazines offends basic notions of fair play and common sense. If magazines over 10 rounds present a public safety risk, why are retired police exempt? Because of their training? Well then impose a training requirement to keep them. In any event, if 15 round magazines are inherently "dangerous" training has nothing to do with it. So, I will vote for this bill if it grandfathers in everyone who legally purchased magazines under existing law or if the amendment is removed so that the law applies to everyone."

And that gives me some hope Milsan. These are circuit court judges, more than a notch above NJ state court judges and even the district court yahoo judge who heard this case below. They care about the law, are smart and pay attention to the lawyers that are arguing in front of them. They may have their preconceived notions and personal likes/dislikes, but they care about the law. Just look at Judge Posener in the 7th circuit, who is certaily no gun rights advocate, who wrote the opinion striking down the Illinois law. The woeful argument made by the State of NJ will have a real negative impact on the state's case.