Soju

Shooting pistols while being cross eye dominant is really a non issue. Just lean your head a bit more, or move your arms and hands over a bit farther, or a combination of both. It really doesn't take much practice or effort, and most people won't even realize they are doing it (or observers casually watching). It does however become an issue when shooting rifles. You have a few options. 1. Learn to shoot weak handed. This is probably the most difficult to learn, however if you can become proficient doing so is the best option. I haven't been able to get comfortable doing this, and as shooting is not much more then a hobby for me, and fine not doing so. 2. Shoot with both eyes open. Again, not easy to get accustomed to, and is somewhat dependent on the sights/optics you use. I've gotten quite used to shooting with both eyes open using my open style red dot (Eotech) on my AR, but iron sights and magnified optics...not so much. 3. Shoot with your weak eye. The easiest and simplest solution, but not usually the best. If your weak eye isn't much weaker, then you may not have much of a drop off so to speak shooting with the weak eye. If it quite a bit weaker, it can indeed hinder your shooting. Trying before you buy is almost always a good idea! You may find that what you originally wanted isn't for you, yet something you had little interest in before works well. Enjoy!

We know what you said. If you weren't trying to imply anything then you wouldn't have posted it at all. Don't play ignorant.

If someone wants to organize this, set up a way for payment and distribution, and posts the details, then I would probably be in for 2-4 magazines.

Don't tell them. There is no need to, just as there is no need to tell them you just bought a vacuum and have one in the trunk if that were the case. Avoid answering any questions unrelated to the stop. Say things like "I'm sorry?" "Pardon me" "Excuse me?" and other phrases, not in a questioning manner, but more of a confused I don't think I heard you manner. If they are persistent, or don't like your answer, be direct with them. Ask them if you are being detained. Ask them if you are free to go. BTW, who are these cops asking all sorts of unrelated questions? If you are being pulled over, there is probably a reason why, and unless that reason is they think you are carrying illegal weapons or something, why are they asking you irrelevant questions? I have never known that to be the case unless the person that got pulled over is a real doucher.

You're welcome.

Welcome. I'm a C-17 guy myself. Thanks for fixing our jets! I suggest you work hard and try and get into the FCC program if you aren't already so you can come flying with us.

Agreed to all four of the previous posts. It is hardly ever a bad thing to err on the side of caution, I just didn't want others to think they have to legally. I can't see how a loaded magazine in any way could constitute a loaded firearm unless that magazine was actually inserted into the firearm. Then even without a round chambered, I could see that as being construed as loaded. Which leads me to another question. Does NJ have a definition of loaded? I know the term is defined in various states and depending on the state can mean different things. If I had to wager, it probably isn't defined in NJ, so it is left up to the powers to be to make it mean whatever they feel like it at that moment. So with that said, I retract my previous statement about not understanding how a loaded magazine (not in a firearm) could be considered a loaded firearm.

Correct. You are completely within the law transporting that way.

I was told that you had to transport the ammunition and firearms in separate vehicles that must be kept at least 3 car lengths apart and that the firing pins had to be removed, magazines disassembled, and the barrels filled with toothpaste or else it was illegal. I heard this from a LEO and a firearm instructor. I also heard hollow points were illegal and you could only obtain them by having them shipped via train to the nearest train station, the shuttled to your house via horse drawn carriage.

OMG....

And the spread of misinformation continues. How many times does someone have to post something blatantly wrong before they even make an attempt to look it up first?

You are fine. I would do the same if I had a lockable trunk. Instead, my firearms go in hard cases, usually locked just because. Most of my ammo and magazines go either in a range bag or ammo cans, depending on what I'm shooting and how much ammo I am bringing. If I have my pelican case, it has cutouts for some magazines, those magazines stay in that, usually loaded. It is easier that way.

California has dumb laws like NJ. To carry legally, it has to be unloaded. If it is loaded, it is a crime. So you could certainly argue that yes, he had reasonable suspicion. But I'm not even making that argument. When you consent you have given up your 4th Amendment rights. He consented. So there is no violation of anything. The officer doesn't need reasonable suspicion. He checked to see it was unloaded. It was. He gave it back. He chatted with the guy. The guy didn't want to show him ID or give him his last name. He didn't push it, or keep asking for it. He chatted with the guy nicely. The guy was free to go at any point. He was not detained. Whether or not you or I agree with the laws, the California policy of open carrying an unloaded firearm, the act of open carrying an unloaded firearm, or the officer approaching him after he had received concerned calls by people who don't know the law, none of those things are the issue, nor your dislike for them justification making what happened illegal. For the record, I think it is kind of ridiculous the police even were called, and equally ridiculous that he had to be questioned. But the reality is, what happened is going to continue to happen when the general population is ignorant. Life sucks and you'll make it suck more by complaining about minor annoyances that happen in every day life. Like I said before, there is a difference between this, and say being harassed, threatened, and arrested for doing something legal. Had that been the case, then there certainly would be a problem. Fortunately, none of that happened in this case.

Cool. Glad you defined what it takes to detain someone. That might be applicable if he ever detained the guy. But he didn't so it isn't.

So responding to a call is a terry stop, and asking some questions which are being complied with and not forcing somebody to do anything is being detained? You sure have some very different definition of things then I do. Is it sad and disappointing that people legally carrying get approached by cops because other people call, or they themselves are not informed? Yes. But saying it is illegal based on your own vague definition doesn't make it so. I don't want to be hassled anymore then you do just for doing something I'm allowed to, but you are stretching it if you think this guy was hassled. This is far from the Philadelphia incident or the other incident with a driver and a CCW that was posted (was it this forum?) recently with cops clearly overstepping their bounds, so don't make it as such.

So you are saying it is illegal for police to simply talk to and hold a conversation with someone on the street in public? That seems odd to me, and I highly doubt that it is illegal. In fact, I'm nearly positive it isn't. The officer didn't detain him. He didn't demand he do anything really. He asked him if he could check the weapon. He didn't force the man to comply. He asked him for his name, albeit in a firm way, but didn't force him to tell him his last name. I think it would be funny if there is ever a time where you happen to ask a police officer a innocent question like "do you know which direction 4th street is?" and they told you they weren't required to answer, just because.

About your last sentence, I don't think you were wrong. In fact, I think due to the nature of reading things on the internet, what you said originally wasn't said quite how you meant, was misinterpreted or blown out of proportion, and subsequent posts (not just from you) where taken as attacks or meant solely to argue, and we ended up here. You see this all the time on internet forums. Somebody says one thing. Someone disagrees with something, that original person thinks they are being attacked, and in turn argue back, it goes on and on and you got people thinking people are giant douches all over misinterpreting the tone of a post. In the end life goes on...well, for some people. Not for the dirtbag who got shot which started this thread. Life isn't going on for him. But it seems his life should have ended sooner anyways.

So a rapist/murderer shoots at police and is in turn killed. As unfortunate of a incident this was he got what he deserved. It seems as though 19 years was already too long for this dirtbag to have lived.

Except it won't feed longs and shorts worth a darn. So it isn't quite capable of feeding your 16+ shorts, so wouldn't be semi-auto. And it is chambered in 22LR only, which will only hold 14 rounds. You really have to be paranoid to be afraid of owning a Marlin 60 because you can fit more then 15 shorts in the tube. That is like saying you could jam 16 9mm rounds in your .40 magazine so it is illegal...

Stalker.......

He clearly set the code to something standard for the video. I doubt there is steel around. The point of it is that you don't know it is there. So sure, it probably wouldn't take much to break into...if you know it is there. But then again, if you know it is there it defeats the purpose of it. I fail to see how you could have missed that point...

Well that certainly makes sense then. However the part I had bolded seemingly defines what "reasonable belief" means, which would imply that if the stipulations it described were met, then the criteria of protecting against death or serious bodily harm was fulfilled. Now whether or not they actual are is another story, as I would be inclined to agree with you to an extent. With that said, I wouldn't be against a law that does not restrict ones use of force against a criminal who breaks into your home. I would be fine with the only criteria to be let off the hook being 1. It is your place of residence (house, apartment, condo) 2. The person illegally broke into your home. Tough luck for the criminal who just was trying to steal your stereo. Maybe people would be more hesitant on breaking into other peoples homes.

So if I asked you to consent to me searching your car that would be fine then, because after all, you have nothing to hide? Sure....that would fly. After all, it is everyones job to protect themselves. So if I think you are shady, then what is the difference between me searching your car and you searching my car? Because it is 'your job'? That is a load of crap. It is NOT your job to search peoples cars on whims because that person wasn't all happy and cheerful with you. You have as little right to search my car as I have to search yours, failing reasonable cause or a warrant. It is disappointing that people in charge of upholding laws don't even understand those laws they are suppose to uphold... and then they talk about "just doing their job".

Well, it doesn't say disarm, surrender, and withdraw. It says or. He didn't surrender when that is what you demand he do. It also doesn't say " believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury" AND those things. It says OR those things. So at the very least, that wouldn't be the argument. The argument would have to be whether or not the 'or' where it talks about disarming, surrendering or withdrawing is implied that if the intruder doesn't do one of those things you are justified, or that if he does do one of those things you are not justified. Depending on your interpretation the meaning changes GREATLY. IMO, it is your house, he is the bad guy, you should be given the benefit of the doubt until you step outside your bounds, not the other way around. You shoot him as he is stealing your stuff is different from shooting him, then walking up and executing him while he is down. No, you don't. It certainly can be argued that you are not justified, but NOT because you didn't think he was going to hurt you. It says that, OR if he doesn't disarm, withdraw, or surrender when you demand he do so. So you have an argument, but you got the wrong one. The argument is that he was withdrawing and you shot him anyways.