PDM

I truly believe that the NRA will need to change tack on this one. It is a game changer. I was surprised to hear Schumer spout more than the usual false platitudes about the 2A. He came out and said that the gun control crowd needs to accept that they can't take away everyone's guns, and that we need compromise. I'm sure NRA won't use this opportunity to make any concessions, but they would be wise to. Specifically, there is no way all semi-automatic firearms will be banned. We all know that an "assault weapons ban" will be meaningless -- collapsible stock, flash hider, etc are irrelevant. That leaves one topic for discussion -- magazine capacity. I know most people on this board don't see it this way, but if there is one feature that can at least arguably be said to be related to possibly mitigate if not prevent these tragedies, it is magazine capacity. No gun organization, to my knowledge, has ever questioned the antis on their universally proposed 10 round limit. It is time for the NRA to have that discussion. Why 10 rounds? The vast majority of modern semi-autos, widely owned for sporting and self-defense purposes, hold more than 10 rounds. If the NRA could "counter" with a proposed ban of anything above 20, or even 15, so as to have as little impact as possible on current gun owners, with a well reasoned position as to why that makes sense, it would go a long way to deflecting the avalanche of criticism being directed the NRA's way. Even A rated Senators are now supporting this type of measure. The NRA needs to be smart and get out in front of this issue, and offer some concession. And, as part of any legislation, nationwide CCW rights, INCLUDING in states like NY, NJ, CA and MD, need to be addressed as does improved mental health screening and background checks. If training requirements are on the table I am guessing many Americans would be ok with, if not welcome, giving more people the opportunity to defend themselves from horrors like this. The NRA needs to be smart and think outside their usual box. I doubt they will.

The NRA needs to be constructive. Gun control advocates want a dialogue? Let's have one. What additional law, conceivably, could have made a difference in this horrible tragedy? Answer: mental illness and guns don't mix. Virginia Tech, Aurora, the Giffords shooting, the recent mall shooting in Oregon, this most recent school shooting, even Columbine to some degree -- all involved outright mental illness or extreme sociopathic behavior. In at least some of these cases the shooter obtained the guns from a family member. It should be a FELONY for anyone to possess firearms when there is someone undergoing treatment for mental illness or with clear signs of mental illness living in the home. In this regard, the burden needs to be on the gun owner. If there is any doubt on this issue, don't own guns. This is the only type of law that can be tailored to the problems we've been seeing. Whatever one thinks about gun rights, an assault weapons ban will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer. The NRA should, however, be willing to engage in a disucssion of magazine capacity. 10 rounds is simply the wrong number -- there are far too many magazines of various sorts out there up to 20 rounds, and a myriad of firearms come with mags between 10 and 20 rounds. A ban of 30 rounds or above would not realistically impede on anyone's ability to defend themselves. Tied to any of these discussions should be a discussion of nationwide carry rights, including in current may issue states. The evidence is overwhelming that carry permit holdsers are overall more law abiding than the general population. Plus we now have a ct of appeals decision (by an anti-gun judge) holding that the 2A applies outside the home. The NRA, and we need to stop being reactive and absolutists and engage in discussion that will lead to laws that at least have a chance at mitigating the likelihood of these types of tragedies, while also preserving and expanding our rights in important areas (ie CCW).

If this kid had known mental issues then the mother was an idiot for owning guns and she bears some of the responsibility (and she obviously paid a horrible price for her poor judgment). Just because one has the right to own a gun, doesn't mean one should own a gun. The presence of a mentally ill person, of any age, in the home, is reason enough to say "I'm not going to own a gun." There is no way to secure a firearm adqueately with a person living in the home who has a diagosed mental illness. With rights come responsibilities. If certain classes of people can be barred from owning a gun -- convicted felons and those who have a record of being committed to a mental facility -- I think we can add people who have a mentally ill person living at home (to include diagonsed bipolar disorder, serious depression schizophrenia, paranoia, and other similar serious conditions to the list of people inelligible to own firearms.

Woodentoe, let's put aside whether training should be a government requirement or not. Do you not agree that no one should carry without meaningful training? Don't you think it would be incredibly foolish to carry a gun outside your house without being very comfortable at the very least with shooting fundamentals, how to conceal and carry without printing, drawing from a holster, moving and shooting, tactical and emergency reloads, clearing malfunctions, etc. and a solid foundation in when it is permissible to use deadly force? I certainly think that anyone who does not have solid training in these basics is a danger to himself and others and will likely not be able to defend himself anyway if ever faced with a deadly threat or perceived threat. Quality training is not cheap, and it certainly isn't free. That's just the way it is. So, my answer would be that a poorer person would need to save up to obtain training before carrying. That's just the way it is -- with rights come responsibilities. The reality is that if you can afford a gun, holster and ammunition, you can afford some basic training, even if it may be a bit of hardship for very poor people. The real potential problem is that the government could make it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to obtain training. That, IMHO, is what we need to be concerned about.

Personally, I also have no problem with a training requirement and in fact think it is a good idea. The 2A clearly applies outside the home, but I also think the government does have a heightened interest in regulating carry outside the home which warrants a training requirement. I personally would like to see it outsourced to the NRA. They already have personal protection outside the home and CCW courses set up. Realistically, I think anyone who wants to carry needs, at a minimum, to have taken a basic pistol class and then at least 2 days/16 hours of in depth concealed carry training with both classroom time on permitted use of force, conflict de-escalation techniques, dry firing and drawing from a holster, and live range time. I also think an initial qualification test and recertification every few years, including an updated bacgkround check, should be required. As long as the training is offerred and conducted in good faith, and presumably it would be if overseen by the NRA, I'd have no problem with it.

Exactly. I was raised in Queens NY and never touched a gun, except for two months at camp when I was 10 when I was the best shot in our bunk with a .22 and won an NRA certificate. I would have loved to have a firearm, but the chances of my parents getting me one were roughly the same as them getting me a pet cobra. Roughly 5 years ago, after going shooting with a friend it dawned on me that I am now an adult with the financial means to buy a gun. The one hurdle was my wife, and trust me that wasn't easy. But I went ahead and bought one and took a basic pistol course, and one eventuall turned into 15, with additional advanced firearms courses, NRA and ANJRPC membersips. NJ2AS membership, membership at other ranges, etc. As I went through the process of buying a gun, I realized just how horrific NJ gun laws are which got me interested in the whole 2A issue. So, all it took was a trip to the range with a friend that got the ball rolling. The very best contribution any of us can make is to take a non-shooting friend to the range.

Here are a few statistics that shed light on the OP's question. In 2010 there were 37,000 NICS checks for firearm purchases in NJ, and 76,000 checks in 2012. A big jump right? Well, consider that NJ has virtually the lowest per capita number of NICS checks in the entire country, and thus presumably the lowest rate of legal firearms ownership (the FBI released NICS check data per state and you can easily calculate the rate based on state populations, available on the internet). Here are a few examples for comparison, both of ant-gun and gun friendly states: NJ: .009 NICS check per person. NY: .015 NICS checks per person California: .026 NICS checks per person New Hampshire: .082 NICS checks per person Montana: .117 NICS checks per person (with a population of 989,415 people, roughly 11% of NJ's population, yet 115,893 NICS checks were conducted in 2012, compared to 76,000 in NJ with a population of 8.7 million). Put another way, the rate of NICS checks in Montana is roughly 12x that of NJ. Get the picture? Fewer guns owned, fewer gun owners, and thus far less interest in gun ownership rights.

Zeke -- retired LEOs don't need to show justifiable need. A separate law was passed that speficially allows them to carry, if they undergo annual re-certification.

One other point. While the OP does ask us to engage in a round of intellectual masturbation, the question highlights an important issue. If we ultimately do win this fight in court, whether at the 3rd circuit, the Supreme Court or both, there will be a lot of leeway for the state to play around. At that point, the person in the Governor's office will be critical. Christie gets a lot of flack for being a "RINO", not a friend of gun owners, etc. But ask yourself this: If the NJ carry statute is held unconstitutional and the legislature needs to come up with a fix, who would you want that new law presented to for signature, Christie or Corey Booker (for example). I have a feeling that, if faced with a clear ruling that the 2A applies outside the home, Christie would easily sign a law that has training requirements and testing, but not one that is so burdensome as to effectively render the permitting process meaningless. He'd sign a new law that pushes into the grey zone of constitutionality, but not one that crosses the line. I could easily see a guy like Booker more than willingly sign a law that effectively nullifies carry outside the home and then say "sue us". Think about that when the next election comes around.

There are limits on government's ability to flout the law, even in NJ. Everything depends on how the Supreme Court rules, and after the 7th circuit decision about Illinois carry it is virtually guaranteed that this will go before the Supreme court. If the Supreme Court affirms the 7th circuit (and hopefully the 3rd circuit, if the NJ case goes our way) and holds that the 2A applies outside the home, NJ will almost certainly have to go shall issue. There also would certainly be training and testing requirements -- one option would be to simply apply the same permit requirements that retired cops now undergo (training and yearly qualification in order to obtain a permit). But if the state goes too far -- for example by charging $1000 for a permit or requiring testing at one range in the Pinelands with appointments available once every six months or some other similar shennanigans -- they run the very real risk that citizens will ignore the permitting requirements and carry anyway, in reliance on the Supreme Court ruling. In other words being too unreasonable could result in de facto constituional carry in this state. If they ever tried to prosecute a person under such an unreasonable statute the state would stand a very good chance of losing.

(Not sure if this post goes here or in General Discussion, moderators can move it if they want.) I've gotten so completely sick and tired of Piers Morgans' nightly rantings about gun control that I did a bit of quick research regarding his home country. In virtually every online or on-air discussion (or diatribe) about gun control, someone will cite to the fact that the murder rate in the US generally and the number of deaths involving firearms specifically is much higher than in the UK. I have yet to hear someone point out that, for most law abiding citizens, this statistic is meaningless. We all know that roughly 1/3 of US "gun deaths" are the result of suicide and virtually all of the rest are homicides (with a miniscule percentage being accidents). Most homicides involve criminals (aka sh*tbags) killing other criminals. 90% of crimes are committed by people who already have a criminal record (there is ample support for this, I don't have the statistics in front of me). For all of us non-criminals, it is the violent crime rate -- the number of robberies (including home invasions), burglaries, theft (eg pickpocketing, stolen cars and bikes, etc), assaults, and rape per 100,000 people -- that directly impacts us and our families. This is the relevant statistic that determines whether law abiding citizens can live in peace and safety or are terrorized on the streets and in their homes. I went to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime website, a source no one can claim is biased towards gun ownership, to see how the US stacks up against the UK in terms of violent crime (each number is incidents per 100,000 of population, statistics for 2010, most recent available year): Assaults: US: 250.9 UK: 664.4 Robbery (forcible taking of property, including home invasions): US: 115.3 UK: 137.9 Burglary (theft of property from a home not involving force): US: 695.9 UK: 946.1 Theft (theft of non-motorvehicle property outside the home not involving force): US: 1,993 UK: 2,574.5 [!!] Conclusion: The UK, with its gun confiscation and virtual outlawing of self-defense, is a much, much more dangerous place than the US. A useful statistic that I'd like to see cited more often.

Tired of constantly hearing how we need a "mature discussion on gun control"? Read this, it's hilarious: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/gun-control-ad-infinitum/

There is something odd about this story and the way it is being reported. All the news stories I have seen say little about how or why the gunman was stopped, only saying it was an "apparent suicide" and confirming that the police did not fire any rounds. Why aren't there more details at this point? Also, in every other active shooter scenario I've read about, the gunman stopped firing only when confronted by police (either being shot or physically detained by the police or committing suicide after being confronted) or in a few cases killed by an armed citizen. Very odd that this nut would kill himself without being confronted, unless he was targeting a specific person and then killed himself. If this person in Oregon had been stopped by an armed citizen, I wonder whether the police and the media might deliberately delay or avoid reporting that? I have no reason whatsoever to believe that is the case here, but it does seem a bit odd.

Allow me to break it down for you: There are two issues that the 3rd circuit must decide in the appeal of the NJ carry case: 1) Does the 2A right extend outside the home?; and 2) If the answer to 1 is "yes", does the NJ carry statute, in particular the "justifiable need" part of it, infringe upon or impermissibly burden that right? In the Illinois case, they only addressed question 1 and answered "yes" the 2A extends outside the home. That ruling most definitely a big deal and most definitely helps us in NJ get past the first hurdle. If the 3rd circuit agrees with the 7th on that question, the court will then need to consider whether the justifiable need standard passes muster under the 2A. ie does it impermissibly burden the 2A right utilizing the level of scrutiny found appropriate by the court (I'm guessing intermediate scrutiny). The 7th circuit really did not address this question -- whether may issue is ok -- directly (it would have been quite nice if they would have given a bit more guidance on the issue, but they didn't). Let's assume that the 3rd circuit agrees that the 2A extends outside the home. Gura (if he is arguing this case) will basically need to argue that the NJ statute effectively acts as a complete ban on carry for most people (really not that hard to prove, as we know), except a very narrow, privileged class (retired police officers). If the 2A right extends outside the home, and is rooted in the fundamental right of self-defense, a law that can be arbitrarily abused by police chiefs and judges so as to effectively ban concealed carry can't pass muster under any level of scrutiny. At least that's how I hope it goes.

This ruling is very significant and very helpful to us in at least two respects: 1) It is the first appelate decision to hold that the 2A applies outside the home (our case will be heard by the 3rd circuit and the Maryland case (favorably decided at the District Court level) will be heard by the 4th circuit). With the 2nd circuit going the other way, this guarantees that the issue will be before the supreme court. 2) Judges, like most people, don't like to go out on a limb. If the judges on the 3rd circuit are at least willing to consider the issue dispassionately and with an open mind in light of Heller/McDonald, this 7th circuit case will give them cover if they are leaning even slightly towards overturning NJ law. They won't be the first circuit court to hold that the 2A applies outside the home. Judge Posner is a very respected jurist. If the 3rd circuit judges accept that the core of the 2A is self-defense and that self-defense is at least equally as important outside the home as in, they will ned to consider whether a statute that de facto bans concealed carry can withstand scrutiny. The Illinois decision most definitely opens the door a bit to possible (although I think unlikely) victory in the NJ case at the 3rd circuit level. Either way, this goes before the S Ct. next year.

Holy f****** c***, that just made my day. Judge Posner actually got it right. Here is a news report (nothing on the 7th circuit docket yet). This virtually guarantees the issue will be heard by the S Ct with a split between the 2nd and 7th Circuits. http://news.yahoo.com/court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-law-175533112.html "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court's majority opinion. "The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense." He continued: "Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden." The court ordered its ruling stayed "to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner said.

When I bought my first handgun almost five years ago, I honestly thought there was no way I'd want or need another. 10 handguns, 5 rifles and a shotgun later, I think I actually might be done. For now....

Martin Bashir is absolutely, hands down the worst, and that's saying a lot with the likes of Maddow, Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnel on the air. I remember when that restaurant owner in Manhattan used a legally owned shotgun to kill two armed robbers holding guns to his employees head. At the end of a story on Nightline on the incident, right before cutting to commercial, Bashir commented "there's an example of a man taking justice into his own hands." I couldn't believe what I heard. It goes to show the mindset of these people. It's not just that they don't like guns. They are idealogues who simply either can't or won't distinguish between lawful self-defense and vigilantism.

Some people apparently believe that nothing short of living off the grid with an illegally converted machine gun makes one truly free. No system of government is perfect and unless you want anarchy ANY social compact will necessarily require that citizens cede some measure of choice and independence to the government/collective. There are myriad examples: "I want to be able to drive 100 mph. Why should the government be able to stop me?" "I want to own a bazooka, why should the government say I can't?" I believe that way of thinking is dangerous, not to mention foolish. Our founding fathers created a system of government that is far and away the greatest ever conceived by man, although of course far from perfect. In my opinion, the system continues to oeprate fairly well. Yes, the Patriot act has its problems and we need to be vigilant, but being bound by laws and restricted in our personal choices does not make us "sheeple" -- it is an inevitable result of living in a civilized society. Ultimately, we safeguard our freedoms by making our voices heard and advocating strongly for our views. And yes, if our core freedoms are truly compromised and we are threatened with tyranny, our founding fathers sought to guarantee our ability to defend ourselves and forcibly resist tryranny. All that said, freedom does not mean being able to do whatever the heck you feel like doing as some people seem to believe.

High Exposure -- do BCM and Daniel Defense sell NJ compliant uppers. I had looked a while back and didn't see that offered, but maybe I missed it. I know Spike's does, but they have a ridiculous wait time.

I personally would have no problems with NICS checks for private transactions (with an exception for firearms passed by inheritance) IF the law were drafted properly to give private parties equal, guaranteed access to the system so that private sales are no more or less onerous than sales through an FFL. If it were possible to "trade" this for nationwide CCW reciprocity and removal of justifiable need (either through reciprocity or a federal law that pre-empts states that have may issue) I would say it would be a no-brainer.

While I am sure that many or most on this forum will find much inthis article objectionable, I think it is one of the best pieces I've seen in the mainstream media on the topic of guns and gun control: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/12/the-case-for-more-guns-and-more-gun-control/309161/ It is long. Goldberg's thesis is that banning guns is basically an impossibility, so we should focus on measures that might work to improve public safety, including improving background checks AND, shockingly, expanding concealed carry rights. He clearly isn't a "gun person" but at least writes with logic and without hysteria. This is the kind of approach that would sway many people who don't own guns or necessarily care about gun ownership but who might be open to fixing some of our broken gun laws. I'm curious what others think.

riflegear online has them. 15 rd pmags, with or without a ranger plate.

Safariland 123 horizontal mag pouch. $16 on Amazon. Has a flap that completely conceals the mag, unlike the Galco, and about $20 cheaper. Best solution I've found. http://www.amazon.com/Safariland-Concealment-Magazine-Holder-123-18-2/dp/B002Q6GKPU/ref=sr_1_fed0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1353630866&sr=8-1&keywords=safariland+mag+pouch

Hmmm, based solely on that list, NJ ain't that bad! Aren't we lucky?