SJG

1.True 2 False 3. No 4. No it is not. I live in both Fl and NJ and if you want to sell it and transfer it to me in Fl tell me how much you want for it.

Great story-- Way to Go!

put a midwest industries optics mount on it with a sig romeo 5 red dot; also have a primary arms scope if I want to scope it

Can be had with low bids on Gunbroker. Picked up the traditional look with wood stock. Put 250 rounds through her. So far, so good. Improved Nitride process has hardened the bolt and apparently resolved some of the problems with earlier V2 releases that are depicted in youtube videos. The trigger is very smooth like an ALG aftermarket and the receiver is very nicely milled.

Shot 250 rounds from a June mfg date in the P365, no failure to feeds, one failure to lock open, no other malfunctions. Gun carries great in an Alien Gear IWB holster (in Fl) now. I really like the friction grip. Internals look good so far. Gun is extremely accurate and easy to get on target with x-ray sights. Much better in the hand with the optional 12 rounder although the included 10 rounder is not bad. Hard to believe they fit all these rounds in such a small package. The trigger feels good and resets well. Initially, I did not realize that on disassembly you may need to push up slide release before you rotate take down lever from 4 to 6 position to reinstall slide--but it is mentioned in the manual. This is on track to be my favorite carry gun along with the Walther PPS M2. So far, it appears that Sig has resolved any design/mfg problems--

Picked one up with a June manufacture. Will post on it after I shoot it at the range

Are Ray Guns Available?

The Gov's decision not to retry him was a huge disappointment to say the least. We can only hope he does not win re-election.

There are downloadable instructions posted on the internet as to how to make a nuclear bomb. I would be more concerned with that as opposed to 3D gun info being posted on the net

Federal judge in Seattle blocks release of blueprints for 3D-printed guns Nationwide TRO https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/federal-judge-in-seattle-blocks-release-of-blueprints-for-3d-printed-guns/

The pirate bay links work Can free CAD be used to visualize these files? What is needed? How to see?

now working

links not working now wonder if they have blocked

Here it is, the latest lawsuit filed late yesterday by multiple states (NJ not incluided) against DD and the feds https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4622337-01-Complaint.html Contains a good description of the proposed available files for download

Please post any links where you were actually able to successfully download this material.

This has now gone national https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/07/27/lawmakers-are-attempting-to-prevent-the-spread-of-3-d-printed-guns-it-may-be-too-late/?utm_term=.7d461056f805 NJ is pissing in the wind if they think they can stop this

This is interesting. NJ is now in the position of a defendant as opposed to a plaintiff. Once they file an answer in Tx the plaintiff will probably seek a TRO or Preliminary Injunction. The last thing NJ will want to do is to litigate this matter in Tx and lose the hometown advantage so NJ may file suit here and try and get the TX suit dismissed.

As I understand it, although 8/1 was the scheduled release date, I am sure it has probably already been released and will simply be republished or reposted on the net. Prior restraints of speech are almost always shot down. I understand that Defcad has agreed to temporarily block access to its website from persons in certain states such as PA. Out of curosity, I got on their site this am. This link still works https://defdist.org/

This should get interesting fast

“Defense Distributed’s plans to allow anyone with a 3-D printer to download a code and create a fully operational gun directly threatens the public safety of New Jersey’s residents,” Grewal said. “Posting this material online is no different than driving to New Jersey and handing out hard-copy files on any street corner. The federal government is no longer willing to stop Defense Distributed from publishing this dangerous code, and so New Jersey must step up.” According to media reports, the company’s move to start offering the plans, which include plans for an AR-15 assault rifle and a handgun, comes after a settlement in a lawsuit between the U.S. State Department and the company. “The age of the downloadable gun begins,” Defense Distributed stated on its site, according to a report in USA Today. Its founder, Cody Wilson, tweeted a photograph of a grave marked “American gun control.” Defense Distributed, Grewal said in the letter, plans to “make do-it-yourself guns available to anyone, even if the individuals are prohibited from owning guns because of prior convictions, history of mental illness, or history of domestic violence, even if the weapons they print are illegal in my state, and even if they plan to use their weapons to further crimes and acts of violence. … Not only are these plans to publish printable-gun files dangerous, they also violate New Jersey law.” Defense Distributed made national headlines by developing files that enable consumers to create fully operational firearms with a 3-D printer. Wilson developed a printable plastic pistol known as the “Liberator .380” in 2012 and put the plans online, but was blocked by the federal government, the attorney general’s statement said. Grewal contends that publicizing the files will “flood the illegal firearms market.” The letter also says that Wilson has “no intention of precluding [these] printable-gun computer files, including designs for assault weapons, from winding up in the hands of criminals, minors, and the mentally ill.” “I demand that you halt publication of the printable gun computer files,” Grewal said. “Should you fail to comply with this letter, my office will initiate legal action barring you from publishing these files before August 1, 2018.” PA taking similar action

Just curious. What has your experience been?

I just looked at the passed and signed version of the statute. There is an inherent ambiguity regarding the section I quoted and another part of the law, that is the 180 grace period, whereas the quoted section has a one year registration time limit. I agree that the registration exception applies to magazines that cannot be modified but if the vast majority can be, then the takings issue may only apply to some but not all, but that does not make the takings stronger---but it may be enough. However, the time gap between the 180 grace period and the 1 year registration period, even if limited to a minority of mags--may afford a defense for anyone that goes beyond 180 days and up to the 1 year period, those in that group may be able to argue that they could not modify and the one year mandatory registration period still applies. Very poor drafting.

Well, I guess we read the Nappen summary different: "The new registration requirements demand that a person who legally owns, prior to the enactment of the new law; 1) a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds; OR 2) a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds. One must register that firearm within one year from the new law’s enactment. (Even though there is only 180 day “grace period” for newly prohibited magazines.) I guess the issue is "up to 15 rounds or less"--seems to me that means from 1-15--and if more than 10 which you can't modify I read it as saying you could register. By the way, registration is a bad idea and nothing more than a prelude to seizure which will be the Dems next step \

registration for fixed mags 15 or detachables of 15 or less that cannot be modified to 10. Calif did not have that option

This is good news but the opinion is not for publication and not precedential nor is the case in the U.S. District court in Calif over. NJ unlike the Calif law contains a fourth option for registration--for existing mags--not present as an option in the Calif law, which will surely impact the "takings" analysis. Also, the Ninth Cir opinion is not a ruling on the merits of the Calif 10 round mag bag. However--a win is a win---