johnott

Congrats! - Been there, done that and I don't regret a thing.

Welcome to the forum John.

Welcome from Gloucester county.

I guess they thought it met the definition of a "pop" gun. Seriously, that's totally outrageous.

I am older than I was yesterday and younger than I will be tomorrow.

Welcome from Gloucester county.

Doing some quick research It appears that this technique has some advantages; it's pretty effective while being seated or in extremely close quarters and is good for retention purposes, but at targets over 10-15 feet away it begins to suffer in accuracy. I guess it just depends on the situation your in as to whether it would be useful.

Yes. That's the one. Thank you. C.A.R. - Center Axis Relock. I was talking to an instructor friend of my at the range two weeks ago and we were discussing different stances and techniques and I just couldn't remember the name of this one. I personally can't use this stance unless I go to my weak-side. I am right-handed and have no vision in my left eye so this just doesn't work for me, but I thought it was very interesting. Thanks for jogging my memory. *Sorry my OP was a little off on the technique as neither arm is locked or straight. But you figured it out regardless. I wonder if I can adapt this technique using my right hand/right eye with any success? Oh well whatever works.

Nope, that wasn't it. Not Weaver related in name.

A couple months back I came across an article on the Internet about a new style/technique of holding a handgun. From what I remember, you stand at an angle to your target, weak-side forward. Then strong-side arm straight and supported with bent weak-side arm. At his point you sight the target with your non-dominate eye. So that a right-handed person uses his left eye. The position of the body relative to the arms along with using the weak-side eye was supposed to improve stability which in turn improves accuracy especially for follow-up shots. This technique had a name, does anyone know it?

Glad your daughter isn't seriously injured and that they find the person who did this and put them in jail.

A recent Fox News video promotes the view that in light of conflicting decisions by the 7th and 10th circuit courts, the Supremes may have to tackle the issue of an individuals 2nd Amendment rights outside the home. I don't know how they'll rule on this myself, but the 2nd Amendment has to apply to use outside the home in some form or another. Whether it is concealed or open carry or both. (I'm for both of course). The problem I see with this issue is that the Supremes may try to narrowly stick to CCW only and not try and clarify our 2nd Amendment rights beyond what they are now. If they say CCW is o.k., are they going to address to what extent restrictions can or cannot be imposed? Will they make things better or worse? Who knows, let's hope for the best. http://video.foxnews...ntcmp=obnetwork

If you purchase a shotgun but can't carry it, how do you get it home? Then again, the permit itself doesn't specify that you "can't" carry it. As usual NJ's vague legal jargon creates new problems. I think middle school children could write more succinctly than the majority of legislators and judges that we have in the NJ.

Done. I remember watching the recent video of the NJ Assembly, where Assm. Greenwald applauded an on-line petition from the "Million Moms March" that backed the gun-control legislation being proposed here in NJ. The petition was supposedly signed by 24,000 New Jersey-ans. Today I saw a news article related to the Lefts constant attack on our gun rights... where the Obama administration is accused of using fake twitter messages to make it look like their position is being supported by far more people than it actually is. This just makes you wonder about the actual support claimed by gun control advocates. Hmmmm. http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/284679-gop-lawmaker-says-obama-using-fake-people-to-flood-twitter-with-gun-control-messages

Not surprised. Now our legislators are trying to make us #1.

If the state is so confident that nothing is going to happen to you if they deny a CCW... then perhaps they wouldn't mind paying to insure the applicant for $10 million dollars if they subsequently fall victim to a crime where the result is injury or death?

I long for the day when a federal court will slap the @#%! out of NJ's judicial system over their firearms rulings. (many people are worried about when the "shtf", in our state it's even worse because our fan is made of sh!t.) -excuse my french.

I recently talked with a few people at my "home away from home" range in Pa. and they're not happy campers. Many view the current climate of government as over-reaching and intrusive. They are looking at what is happening in other states and are very concerned about an attack on their 2nd Amendment rights as well. The shortage of ammo has gotten the attention of many. Gun sales and range memberships have sky-rocketed. Many are upset that big cities like Philly, Pittsburgh, and Harrisburg are pushing their gun-control agenda onto the rest of the state. Many sum up their opposition with the phase "from my cold dead hands".

That's the political shell game... submit a slew of mostly unreasonable bills, vote down some of the most egregious ones so you end up passing the ones you wanted all along.

Thanks for the post. Hearing the specifics of the "gun control" arguments leads me to believe that those representatives are complete morons. They are not there to represent all of their constituents, or to objectively look at both sides of an issue. They have their own personal agenda to push regardless of what we think. Instead of representing the wishes and views of the "people" they just do the opposite. The legislators push their own ideas onto their constituents by coercing them with mis-information, fear and other emotion. There is no room for debate, their minds are already made up. And except for those who presented pro-gun arguments... they all should be voted out of public office. I am sick and tired of hearing gun-control proponents swear that they respect and uphold the 2nd Amendment and that they are not trying to take our guns away or infringe our rights of self protection. They say they just want to take guns out of the hands of criminals but the only hands that will be empty are ours. They just want to make the streets safer... but the streets are only made safer for the criminals. Those of us who legally own firearms are treated like future criminals or potential threats. We have to be watched and monitored. We are treated as if we are breaking the law unless through exemption we prove otherwise. Isn't that guilty until proven innocent? These gun-control pundits have underestimated just how serious this issue is for many in and out of the firearms community. Although they might win some of the initial legal battles I believe that in the end they will lose the war. The result of which will be totally to their disliking. The pendulum they have set in motion will swing back the other way and whereas they pushed for comprehensive gun control they will end up with no control. CCW, "open carry", the "castle doctrine" and "stand your ground" might become the law of the land one day. I hope when that day comes they will remember that they made it all possible. <Sorry, but sometimes a person just has to vent their opinion and there is no better place than with those who are like minded.>

We should continue to work as hard as we can to prevent anymore intrusion into our 2nd Amendment rights. We can try to keep things from getting worse but I don't think we have much of a chance at making them better than they are right now. After Christie leaves office, then what? More than likely you'll have a Dem Governor, a Dem legislature in a Dem state. Our "salvation" so to speak, lies in the courts. I think that NJ will have to be forced to change... like Illinois is right now with the recent decision by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Illinois has until June 6th to come up with "reasonable" CCW laws. Some insiders are hinting that Ill. may be leaning towards "shall issue". Court challenges to CCW (etc.) are being waged across our country and the end result of these decisions will hopefully set a precedent whereby we can effectively challenge NJ's archaic and backwards firearms laws. So if things look dim and they don't go our way just remember it ain't over 'till it's over. If Illinois ends up having less restrictive CCW laws than NJ then there is hope for us also. NEWS UPDATE: Just in, the 10th circuit court of appeals has just announced that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. This contradiction in recent court decisions may be setting the stage for the involvement of the SCOTUS.

The problem with getting a CCW is that when you are denied it has to be reported on your next FPID or Handgun purchasers permit application (question #19 of STS-33). "(19) Have you ever had a firearms purchaser identification card, permit to purchase a handgun, or permit to carry a handgun refused or revoked?" In answering "yes" you raise a red flag that jeopardizes your chances for approval every time you apply for an FPID or permit. If anything the CCW question should be separate and should read something like this; "Have you ever had a permit to carry refused or revoked for any reason other than "insufficient justifiable need" (check here) and explain." If they did it this way we could apply for CCW's constantly... and the massive amount of rejections would give suitable reasons for a legal challenge. This whole issue of justifiable need is bogus... how can anyone accurately predict when they'll need a gun? Can a person predict when they'll need life insurance?

If Christie does veto some or all of these bills... it seems it may be just a temporary reprieve until a Democrat Governor is elected. Unless we can get a majority of NJ's population on our side or win a SCOTUS decision these things and more are coming our way. We in the firearms community are making a lot of noise right now, but democrat's are used to noise, that's their tactic. They have no problem tuning us out. As long as they can keep control of their constituents by constantly feeding them mis-information we are going to stay outnumbered. I wish a had a solution. Nevertheless, (like the rest of you) I will keep on fighting and spreading the word even though the outlook may be dim.

Welcome.

What if the "actor" claims that your gun belongs to them? Seriously though, paragraph (2) has some serious flaws in it's wording. The meaning of the term "actor" flip-flops back and forth from "aggressor/criminal" to "defendant/homeowner" in the same sentence. Which is it? Because of this sloppy wording, we are having two debates... one is with the technicality of the written word versus real world actions and solutions. These laws absolutely suck... we have these debates over and over again. Just like we do for "reasonable deviation" or "transporting to an adjoining state", "allowing spouse to handle your firearm" -the list goes on and on. The rules are so crappy we waste a lot of time arguing among ourselves and worrying about whether or not we're following the letter of the law. When in fact, even if we do follow the letter of the law the DA's in this state seem determined to convict you of a crime anyway. If the state wants us to follow these nightmarish laws then they should put them in a manual like they do for the driver's test. Not quoting "lawyer speak", but putting it in plain English. Personally, I think they should do away with all the restrictions period. If they can't do it right then they shouldn't do it at all. We should have a Castle Doctrine, we should have "shall issue" CCW, we should have the right to transport firearms to anyplace we want to, we shouldn't have to go through two FFL dealers to purchase out of state... I mean if the NICS is a national check then I'm already vetted. Why do I have to go through "two" FFL dealers? One should be enough. (I would insert a "peaching to the choir" emoticon but I can't find one.)