Soju

I agree it is semantics. I also wasn't arguing with you. Calling you a liar? Not sure where you would get that idea. I did say the satire was so good it was sad because people do actually think this way........................................................

To be honest, if the circumstances behind the entrance and search to begin with, are anything like what was reported in the post, whether or not the rifle was NJ compliant or not shouldn't matter much, as the search and seizure itself would have been blatantly unconstitutional in the first place! Getting away with violating the 4th is equally (if not more!) concerning to me as not following the 2nd.

I think it is clear. It says there is a list of rights specifically mentioned, but that doesn't mean the list is absolute, and any other natural/inalienable right is still a right that cannot be taken away. Of course if even the ones specifically mentioned get denied, ones not mentioned surely can be denied with even greater ease... Not to call anyone out, but I sure find it ironic the number of people who are still commenting about the article in the OP as if it isn't satire...

No, that is a factual statement. The Constitution gives no rights, it is just an enumeration of rights.

No, no that happened to me. Not sure how we got on the discussion of Cold War era US military tactics, but I think you and Kaiser may need to re-read each others posts. I think both of you are over thinking each others statements. But if you guys are still wondering, military aircraft don't commonly fly around loaded with live ordinance on ordinary training missions. Of course they do in some training missions. Do on actually missions (as some aircraft have the capability to take off from the CONUS, make a bombing run in Asia, and return to the CONUS, for example). And as always, there are aircraft and aircrews on readiness, standby, and alert status continually. But I digress. They already can as per Presidential executive order and the NDAA. Yep, the Bill of Rights has little meaning these days. Not just wrong, but unlawful. Fun though right? Look at all the exciting stuff going on!

Classic! I always enjoy some good satire. Of course what makes it great is also what makes it so sad. That this could actually get mistaken as being true is terribly sad. I don't mean sad that someone might not pick up on it, but sad that some people wouldn't pick up on it because they agree!!! I think the C-section amendment is a modest proposal actually.

I'm not sure to be honest, however that is not applicable in the OP's situation specifically, because NJ transportation laws do not apply. What does apply is whether or not his residence is a lawful place to have a firearm. One's residence certainly is. Take it to mean what you want, but I interpret it to mean you can transport a firearm legally to and from any of those above mentioned exempted locations. If not, how in the world could you ever transport a firearm to "land owned or possessed" by you, as that is not specifically mentioned in the very next sentence on transportation after it said it was a legal place to have one? My guess is because it is worded sloppily.

Point taken!

I just came back from Nam. I was hitching through Oregon, and some cops started harassing me. Next thing you know, I had a whole army of cops chasing me through the woods! I had to take them all out, it was a bloodbath! You do NOT go on a man hunt.

I wasn't intending it to be anything negative toward older folks, only pointing out most older folks tend to spend time enjoying retirement, family, and other nice activities...as opposed to trying to dictate the future of strangers and generations they won't be alive for. I mentioned knitting and bird watching specifically because those are 2 things my grandparents do, so seemed appropriate.

It is unlikely his truck broke down and that it was found burnt out up there was anything besides planned. It is also unlikely the report of him trying to steal a boat but failing to do so successfully wasn't also planned misdirection. I could be wrong of course. It seems like this guy had years to plan and probably didn't just start now on a whim without it being well thought out and calculated, with contingency plans. Then again, it is also possible he just finally snapped and went on a chaotic murderous rampage without much forethought and froze to death in the mountains. Who knows.

You really have to love it. At ages were most people tend to spend time knitting and bird watching, or being placed in retirement homes, we instead have some of these people dictating (or trying to) our laws and future.

When coming from NY to NJ and NJ back to NY, you must transport the handgun in accordance with FOPA and not NJ law, or NY law specifically. The caveat to this is that in order to do so legally, I don't know how NY works, but on the NJ side of things, you must be going to a place where you can legally possess it, meaning your apartment or the shooting range (based on your scenario). Once at one of those places, unless you plan to go back to NY, you would then transport in accordance with NJ state law. Odd and stupid yes. So that slightly changes the storage requirements (it actually makes it less strict, believe it or not), but does mean again, you must go directly to or from your apartment and the range, no unreasonable deviations (whatever you take that to mean), etc. But yes, you CAN have the firearm at both a shooting range, and your apartment. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Hahahaha. Get real. It comes straight from the tax payers...

Not just the right to bear arms, but also our 4th Amendment rights, which if that story is even only half true, were clearly violated. Heck, if the threat reported in the post is true, that sounds like it could be criminal under 2C:12-1 or 2C:12-3.

As someone is is often the first to criticize police for their wrongdoings, this is laughable. If you are suggesting police should have let some guy who just murdered someone just continue on his way in a crowded area, where he can murder more people if he chooses, that is ridiculous. The fact they hit a number of bystanders isn't excusable, but their actions are understandable. I'd imagine most of the bystanders injured were from 1 of the 2 officers, judging from the video, who probably should have had more training. But I digress. As for the 2 separate LAPD incidents, those weren't mistakes, that was criminal. If anybody else, not LE, lit up a vehicle with 20-30+ rounds, would they leave it up to a review board to see if you needed more training or punishment, or leave it to a prosecutor to charge you with a crime? Well it wouldn't be the first thing, so why is that the case here? Despicable.

Isn't pirating illegal under international maritime law? Maybe they should just make the punishments stricter and add additional legislation to make it even more illegal. We can't have private vessels armed. It will be a blood bath on the high seas, and you will see ships just out there going after other ships. Nobody needs things like machine guns or assault weapons. This is just common sense.

Or if NJ wasn't retarded and didn't have this dumb FPID system in the first place...

I was going to say that. Seems like somebody has dealers spooked. Or maybe not. Awfully strange...

The same could be said for Fox News...and MSNBC...and CNN....

A 1911 is a good choice as a 1st, 2nd, 34th, or any other number firearm.

Now I certainly do not want either of these things to happen, but it sure would be ironic if everyone did lay down their weapons and Dorner still continues on a murderous rampage. Those statements can't be real....

18:57-19:17. Hahahaha. Calling it like it is. So glad he didn't sugar coat anything. So great.

There is no money in real crime so I'm sure they will be.

Read the manifesto. They weren't taken out because of gun control........ To be fair, only an excerpt of the manifesto was about gun control. That part might have been taken out for that reason. The rest though, I assure you, was not for that reason.