PDM

As of October 19, the SAF's Masciandaro case had not been granted cert by the Supreme Court. It would be nice if a 2A case involving carry outside the home made it to the court this year. It is abundantly clear that we will get nowhere in the lower courts.

I suspect StarwarsGeek's comment was not a justification for NJ gun control but rather an explanation of why it is is so pernicious, illogical and punitive. Everything Frank said is true, but unfortunately really doesn't matter as long as our politicians refuse to recognize our fundamental rights and the courts do nothing to stop them. We are relying on a very thin reed people -- a narrow 5 to 4 majority on the Supreme Court, with one of the 5 being a swing vote. We already know that NJ state courts are a lost cause when it comes to the Second Amendment. It is becoming more and more apparent that we can expect little relief at the Federal District Court level or even at the Court of Appeals level. We'll see what happens this week in the SAF case, but I would give 10:1 odds against prevailing in the District Court. I hate to be pessimistic, but I think there is a real possibility that Heller/McDonald may wind up being rather hollow victories when it comes to many of the things we care about. I hope I am wrong. I still believe that ultimately change will come slowly, one new gun owner at a time.

Are people aware that there is a brand new range opening in North Jersey? The exact location hasn't been made public yet, but here is the website: http://www.rtsponline.com/ There is also a facebook page. Range time will be $20 per hr, $350 per year, discounted rate being offered pre-opening is $250. Slightly pricey, but beats shooting with the gang bangers in Belleville I guess. Not many other indoor options in North Jersey that I know of, other than Tenafly RPC.

I think it's great that people want to go, but keep in mind that hearings, particularly in Federal court, are pretty staid proceedings. The one possible benefit of a big turnout might be that any reporters in the courtroom will take notice and it's possible they might interview people afterwards. You will need to likely need check your cell phones and possibly cameras before you go in.

Yes, the pleadings are very well done. Kudos to NJ2AS and Mr. Gutman. The hubris of the NJSP and the AG is astounding. Basically their position is -- "trust us judge, we know what's best. Nuff said." Oh will I be happy if they are slapped down.

I own a variety of firearms so I have thought about which ones I'd choose as my primary defensive firearms. It would be either my HK p2000 in 40sw or my Sig P226 on my hip, Kahr PM9 in my pocket holster as backup, and mini-14 and Rem 870 loaded and standing by. Depending on the severity of the situation, my first step would be to reach out to my friends an neighbors to organize a defense of our block, making my other firearms available if the situation were truly desparate. I think people don't place enough emphasis on community in making their defense plans. If you shelter in place in a suburban setting and are the only one prepared and armed on your block, seems to me you will have a tough time securing your home on your own. If you coordinate with neighbors up and down the block and behind you and cooperate in defending each other you'd stand a much better chance.

Wow. Having dealt with a few judges in my career, I've got to imagine the judge is getting quite pissed, whatever his personal views on guns. Judges don't like to be f****d with or treated like fools. This gives me a glimmer of hope that the good guys have a chance to prevail on this one. Any chance you can post some of the more recent pleadings?

The more I learn about NJ the more convinced I become that the ONLY way to turn things around will be to change attitudes at the grass roots level. What does that mean? 1) For more existing gun owners to become vocal and active and 2) to introduce more NJ citizens to shooting. I've taken 4 newbies to the range over the past year. Two are now applying for FID cards and the other two had a good time and are at least aware of the travesty that is NJ gun laws (I had a capitve audience while driving them to and from the range). The reason things are so sh***y is that very few people in NJ are aware of or care about gun issues. Sorry to be pessimistic, but I just don't see a high probability of a court decision solving our problems and zero probability of a legislative solution unless there is an upheval in the legislature witht he democrats losing both the senate and the assembly. I truly hope I am wrong.

And the Heller II decision was lost at the Appellate level in the DC circuit -- by a 2-1 ruling the court held that DC's assault weapons ban and mag capacity restriction doesn't violate the 2A.

I think not carrying in that area is the correct answer, but keep in mind that the statute not only allows one to carry on your "property" but also on your "premises". Two different terms that arguably mean two different things.

Why do you assume one of them is "bound to get to SCOTUS"? If SCOTUS wants to decide the issue they could have granted cert on the Williams case. Why is Mascandario more likely to be granted cert because it is, arguably, a more favorable case for the appellant? I'm not very familiar with the process the Court goes through in making cert decisions. The fact that the NJ case is trying to eliminate justifiable need really is irrelevant. The sole issue before the Court in any of these cases will be whether the 2A protection extends beyond the home. I'm hoping someone here is knowledgeable and could shed some light on this.

As we know, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Williams v Maryland case regarding whether carry outside the home is covered by the Second Amendment. The article excerpt below, from the Wall Street Journal law blog, implies that the issue is effectively dead and that it won't be considered by the Court. If that is true, the SAF suit pending in NJ and all the other CCW cases are dead in the water. We lose. Anyone else have any views on that? "Gun owners cannot definitively claim they have a constitutional right to carry guns outside their homes, and a judge’s display of the Ten Commandments in his courtroom violated the constitutional separation of church and state. That is the upshot of two cases the Supreme Court yesterday decided not to hear. Yes, when you are the nation’s high court you can make news by effectively doing nothing. One of the cases involved Charles Williams, a Maryland resident arrested in 2007 for carrying his legally-purchased gun outside his home without a state permit. He sought high court review of his claim that the 2nd Amendment protects his right to be armed outside his house. The Supreme Court has ruled that Americans have a right to possess guns in their homes for self defense, but does the right extend beyond the home? Gun advocates had hoped that the Supreme Court would use the Williams case to answer that question with a resounding yes. In their petition seeking Supreme Court review, Williamss lawyers wrote: “Are the words bear arms devoid of meaning, thereby limiting the Second Amendment to the right to keep arms within the four walls of ones dwelling? according to this Christian Science Monitor report. If so,” the brief stated, “it is an extraordinarily constricted constitutional right, that bears little resemblance to the robust right clearly envisioned by the Framers and exercised throughout American history. But in a brief defending the state’s gun laws, Maryland Assistant Attorney General Brian Kleinbord wrote, The Second Amendment does not bar a state from requiring residents to obtain a permit before carrying handguns outside the home,” the Christian Science Monitor reports. Alas, the court kept its powder dry keeping out of the gun battle that would have been Williams v. Maryland."

Loretta Weinberg, sponsor of an unsuccessful (so far) law that would ban most .50 cal rifles in NJ, ought to read today's NY post. In yesterday's Postthe paper reported the absurd and sensationalist statement by Ray Kelly that the NYPD has the capability of shooting down aircraft. Stinger missles in the NYPD inventory? Nope. Inside sources reported that Kelly was referring to a .50 cal barrett that the NYPD acquired. In today's paper, the Post elaborates on why this is absurd: Weapons experts say the .50-caliber rounds are very powerful, but were never intended as an anti-aircraft weapon (excerpt below). Our dear State Senator Loretta made the completely unsupported claim that a .50 cal rifle could be used by terrorists to shoot dow a passenger jet, and reportedly stormed out of a hearing when someone had the audacity to question her on that. Maybe someone ought to send her a copy of the Post article. “The rounds are larger than the size of your thumb, and moving at 2,800 feet per second, the kinetic energy behind it is unbelievable,” said Wil Willis, a former Army Ranger who hosts the upcoming Military Channel show “Triggers.” “But I think it would be nearly impossible to shoot down an aircraft with it.” Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ray_flight_of_fancy_eWgKINaGmp7aOwc00POxiI#ixzz1ZBj5o7hl

I am thoroughly familiar with the NJ AWB and what "substantially similar" means, but am a bit stumped regarding the Kel-Tec Sub 2000. I know a few people in NJ who own them (of course, that doesn't mean its OK, but I believe they bought them at NJ gun shops). I'm thinking of buying one if I can find one online, but then got to thinking that the pistol grip + folding stock could be a problem. The gun is inoperable when the stock is folded and the stock doesn't collapse when it's extended, so maybe that isn't considered a problem under the NJ AWB? Anyone have any knowledge of this issue? I couldn't find another thread on the forum on this.

I am registered Republican, fairly conservative on economic issues, very hawkish (and pro-Israel) on foreign policy, and more of a liberterian on social issues. I find that the views of the Tea Party, while useful as a counterweight to the numbskull "progressives" on the far left, are too strident and absolutist for me. For example, their unyielding view that government is bad and should be minimized at all costs. Yes, government has gotten too big and bloated and spending is out of control. But that doesn't mean that all regulation is bad. We need good, well thought out regulations, not no regulations. For example, without environmental regulation, we'd all be breathing polluted air and drinking polluted water and the entire country would be one big strip mall. IMHO, many people have jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon out of anger and frustration without carefully and dispationately thinking through some of the issues. Unfortunately, in this country people generally don't listen to each other. We become so entrenched in our positions and enamored of our preset soundbytes that we are unwilling or unable to critically examine positions of those with whom we disagree or those who we support.

It can only be a good thing that these shows get airtime. The more mainstream firearms become the better things will be in the NJ gulag. And hopefully this will be better than Sons of Guns, which is utterly idiotic from start to finish. As for the daughter, notwithstanding the legal age of consent, she looks like a kid for crying out loud. It's really sad that her family allowed the producers to tart her up like that. As for the daughter on Sons of Guns, as we used to say down South, if I had a dog that looked liker her I'd shave its a** and teach it to walk backwards.

Very interesting discussion. For me, preparedness means making reasonable preparations to survive a catastrophe that causes relatively short term disruptions. For example, a severe hurricane a la Katrina or an earthquake that impacts us locally or regionally but leaves our national infrastructure intact and the government functioning. Or rioting or social unrest caused, for example, by a political assasination or other event, a la Rodney King and the LA riots. In such an event, supply lines will eventually be reopened and order will be restored, and it makes sense (to me) to have food, water, medical supplies, and the means to protect myself and my family on hand to weather the storm. I'm talking about a week to a month roughly. Beyond that, if we're talking about major and long lasting socio economic breakdown -- a widespread epidemic, nuclear war, etc. -- I don't realistically think there is much I can do to prepare. I live in suburbia and can't buy a farm, and even if I could I'd have no way to protect it and wouldn't know how to run it. What is important but I think sometimes overlooked is to have a social network -- a group of reliable friends and family -- who can congregate and act together in mutual support. One or two armed people against a mob, especially week after week, won't stand a chance. A group of 10 or 20 families that band together, pool resources (one person may have medical training, one person may be mechanically adept, some people may own firearms, etc) stand a much, much better chance of surviving. I have discussed this with friends in my neighborhood and have actually thought about formalizing it a bit -- reaching some informal agreement in advance about how we would gather, how we would allocate responsibilities, how we would defend our neighborhood, if the SHTF.

OK, but my point is that transporting your gun through NJ to carry in NYC with a Fla permit under the National Reciprocity Law would (or should) present no different or greater risks than transporting through NJ to carry in PA.

Why? If I'm legally allowed to carry in NY, why would I have a problem? Or to put it differently, why would I have any more of a problem transporting my firearm (locked and unloaded) from NJ to carry in NY than I would transporting to carry in PA?

Under that bill, a NJ resident with a Fla CCW couldn't carry in NJ, but could carry in NYC. Now wouldn't that be interesting!

Ha! I appreciate the positive spin on it, but of course if the lower courts did their job we wouldn't have to worry about going back to the S. Ct., with all the delay and risk (failure to grant cert, death or retirement of one pro 2A judge, etc) that entails. Also, would be nice to have at least one lower court rule in accordance with Heller/McDonald.

I am trying to get a copy of the opinion, but don't expect it to be well reasoned or logically consistent. It's pretty apparent just from this article that she bought the Brady bunch type scare tactics hook line and sinker. As we know, that way of thinking has nothing to do with logical analysis. And yes, the title of the article ("gun lovers") makes the bias of the author of the article abundantly clear.

A Federal District Court Judge granted summary judgment to the defendants (CCW issuing authority) in Kachalsky v Cascace, the NY CCW case. See article below. Expect the same in the NJ SAF case. No Cause, No Gun, Judge Tells Gun Lovers By ADAM KLASFELD ShareThis WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. (CN) - Five Westchester residents and the Second Amendment Foundation cannot relax a law forcing citizens to demonstrate proper cause before they pack heat on public streets, a federal judge ruled. New York courts have interpreted "proper cause" as having a "special need for self-protection" as compared to the general population. "I hold that the state has an important government interest in promoting public safety and preventing crime," U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel wrote in an order dismissing a class action challenging the regulation. Alan Kachalsky, Christina Nikolov, Eric Detmer, Johnnie Nance and Anna Marcucci-Nance say their applications for full-carry permits were rejected, even though they had all been trained in firearms and had spotless criminal records. Kachalsky claimed he had proper cause because "we live in a world where sporadic random violence might at any moment place one in a position where one needs to defend oneself or possibly others," court documents say. Judge Susan Cacace, his licensing officer, found that this explanation did not distinguish him from anybody else seeking a permit. Nikolov said she deserved a license because she passed three firearms safety courses with the National Rifle Association, showed a "calm demeanor" as a pilot and flight instructor, and had a higher likelihood of being the victim of violence as a transgender woman. Rejecting her request, Judge Jeffrey A. Cohen explained that a specific threat of violence against her was "conspicuously absent" from her application. Nance and Marcucci-Nance cited no special needs for full-carry permits, Judge Robert K. Holdman found. Detmer thought he satisfied the proper cause requirement as a federal law enforcement officer with the U.S. Coast Guard, but Judge Albert Lorenzo said his application contained "no justification" for a full-carry permit. Gaining the support of the Second Amendment Foundation, the five applicants filed a federal class action lawsuit against Westchester County and the four judges serving as licensing officers in late 2010. On Friday, Judge Seibel agreed that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case, but she granted summary judgment to the defendants sua sponte on the grounds that the state had the duty to protect public safety. In a footnote, she noted that the state attorneys argued in affidavits that gun crimes are linked to general availability, and citizens with concealed handguns can endanger cops stopping them. An affidavit also said that the "majority of criminal homicides and other serious crimes are committed by individuals who have not been convicted of a felony and would receive permits to carry concealed weapons without the 'proper cause' requirement." Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives showed that 227 firearms were recovered during the first half of 2009 in Westchester, more than double those recovered in nearby Orange County and several times more than those recovered in Dutchess, Rockland, Sullivan and Putnam. The report also cited 132 weapon offenses in the Westchester region. Judge Seibel entered the 60-page opinion on Friday, preceding a particularly bloody Labor Day weekend in which 48 people were shot in New York City. Mayor Mike Bloomberg called for stricter gun-control laws Tuesday.

Thanks guys for all the replies. And no worries, I'm a big boy and would never thinking of deeming anyone responsible for free advice on a public forum. I may ask around a bit more or see if I can find someone at Cherry Ridge next time I'm there who has some familiarity. I will not shoot the gun if there is any doubt as to safety. And yes, I did a complete disassembly -- removed the barrel, bolt and magazine, disassembled the bolt, cleaned it and all metal parts in boiling water and hoppes, reassembled the bolt and checked the firing pin protrusion with the Mosin tool, cleaned the stock using odorless mineral spirits, followed by a polishing with Scratch x and Howard's feed and wax. A few people PMd me with interest in buying. Not 100% sure if I want to sell. If I decide to sell I will respond in order requests were received. I'm in Bergen County.

Pretty sure. I soaked the barrel/receiver assembly in boiling water, followed by a thorough scrubbing with Hoppes followed by a light oiling.