JackDaWack

A reason for the landlord, yes, not the LEO's. They had no business being in the apartment. The complaint was about the heating, that has nothing to do with the cops, they showed up and got the landlord involved, that was where they needed to draw the line.

There is probably the most upscale trailer park(oxymoron right there) right on the mahwah border. I think it's worse if u shot one off to scare an intruder away.

Believe it or not there are trailers here! Wasnt one tho lol

Wow thanks gov. ! Your the best.

Well the law says you have no right to use deadly force in the protection of yourself under such conditions. I guess we'll just have to disagree. I personally look at it as NJ's way of keeping people from individually fighting over property and collateral damage, welcome to the nanny state.

How many packs of cold medicine can i buy in one month? how many pistols can i buy in one month?

Doesn't matter what it was put in place for, that is what it says, i dont have personal info on why they wrote it that way either. A claim is a claim, the law doesn't elaborate any further. Think about what your saying... if someone didnt think they had a right to your property... they wouldn't be stealing it. Also, your really negating how you will look in court when the prosecution attacks you for confronting the individual and putting yourself in the situation to begin with, even though you really didn't instigate it, when you could have simply stayed in your house and called the cops, they will paint you to be some judge jury and executioner. Honestly, sometimes it's all about how you word what exactly took place. herd a noise outside, took your gun with you, stumble upon someone stealing your car, IF he attacks you, your in the clear to defend. If you KNOW someone is outside taking your car, as you can see the law will be VERY grey and open to interpretation. believe it or not the court will try and make you look like the aggressor.

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if: (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that: Anyone can assert a claim or right to your property, it doesn't say legal claim or right... if someone tries to steal your car they are claiming it as there own even though it would be illegal. Your home is excluded only because it's written, and still has limitation. The fact is, the guy is probably just there for your car. Do you really want to get into a shoot out over a car? Option a) call the cops and deal with insurance. b) confront the guy and have any number of bad what if's take place including killing a person getting yourself killed and possibly anyone in your house killed or going to jail.... stay in your house locked and loaded keep the family safe defend yourself from a fortified position.... do be a hero over a car... save that for a day you could actually make a difference. Chances are the guy takes off the second he realizes he's been spotted.

2C:3-4. Use of force in self-protection. 2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or (b) To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if: (i) The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; (ii) The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or (iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm. (2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if: (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that: (i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and (ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed. (3) Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion. (2) A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and: (a) The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or (b) The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so. (3) An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

a man chasing you with a baseball bat.... a person advancing you with a weapon does not allow for retreat and thus no duty exists.

You have a duty to retreat in NJ to your home or away from danger. The rest makes no difference. You shoot someone outside your house you better have proof the guy was trying to kill you. The LAW is whats important, you follow the law, the law follows NJ constitution. You CAN protect your property in NJ, just not with a weapon.

Not sure how i feel about this. While i find it absurdly silly, at the same time i can't help but ask.. why exactly were they cheering USA USA? if the sole purpose was to point out that the opposing team is mainly Hispanic, then i would say the act was racist, not the chant. There all Americans, so really it's just stupid, no matter what the intent was. Pete put it best.. "And I'm pretty sure freedom of speech allows you to say what you want even if you are an ass." I hate to say it, but being racist is your right, and saying racist things is your right protected... unless you commit a crime in which case it becomes a hate act. It's like the ass hats in the 2a community, you cant protect the good with out protecting the bad.

Honestly, like others have said, its inappropriate, that's all. He's an idiot, nothing we didnt already know. I DO have an issue with the "you got knocked the fugg out", and him saying he "liked" the page so he could revisit it. Why would he be interested in that? He's a man he can like booty, i would prefer he keeps it personal... but your scum if you see people beating up others, and you initial though it let me bookmark this so i can watch it again.

Haha. I have an alibi.... I swear! This was pretty close for comfort though. Pisses me off and don't surprise me, probably some dumb ass kid just got his first AR. They probably already figured out who it was, it had to be a neighbor. Negligent is a pretty good way to describe people around here.

That's a school zone too.

I sincerely have no idea what your talking about... Pat wrote that response, which is a general response he has been sending out to people inquiring. Many people got this response from him. He also runs the AR forum on AR15.com, and deleted a thread when asked if he did in fact write this... He then went on to apologize for the response, which was just as piss poor as the first. THEN AR came out and specifically apologized for an e-mail one of there employees was sending out. To even suggest this is fake, at this point, is just absurd. I'm gonna go with worst rep ever... guy should stay behind his work bench and keep clear of computers.

Beretta! Beretta! Beretta!

Follow the link to Ar-15.com 100% legit with responses from the man himself how wrote the response...

So he thinks the 2a limits us to smooth bore muskets AND he thinks the 2a supports GPS tracking devices on these muskets.... dafuq? if he thinks the 2a limits us to 18th century arms where the hell does 21st century technology fit in there?

I used auctionarms(gunauction) in the past, before and after the name change.. Used to find ammo cheaper on there then gunbroker before the panic.

You should always wear eyes, no matter what is required. I wear 4 dollar safety glasses i picked up my first time shooting, didnt think they would last this long but they are just fine. There is no difference between clear 4 dollar glasses and 100 dollar glasses of the same grade.

.

Griz, thanks for the info, i guess you could say that it would be cheaper to use ball ammo, but at the price difference you observed(which is probably the same now) it is worth the difference to use duty ammo to practice. I didn't realize they got THAT big a discount. Seems like a waste, but i would rather you guys practice with what you carry.

It should be relative. No? If ball ammo is cheaper then it should still be cheaper in bulk. I don't personally know....

Try finding srp varget powder or decent boolits. Components hit rock bottom about 3 weeks ago.