Old Glock guy

I'm certainly not a political strategist, but it seems to me that we would need to turn far fewer than 6101 voters to recall Sweeney. I would be willing to bet that turnout in a recall election is far lower than it is in a general election. Plus, people that passionately oppose Sweeney would probably come out in far greater numbers than would his supporters, who would likely be less motivated.

I was at the meeting last night, and I thought it was really good. Tough to beat lively discussion and cheap beer afterward! Alexander Roubian brings a great passion and energy to our cause, and others there seemed equally enthusiastic about defending our 2A rights. i had the pleasure of meeting several forum members there in "real life," something I always enjoy. I can say that Newtonian expressed his ideas clearly and firmly, and mostly quite civilly. (Perhaps excpet for once or twice when he interrupted Roubian.) I believe the battling man from Newton managed to convince many that a get-out-the-vote effort would be a worthy cause. I've always agreed with him on that, and I believe Roubian saw the merit in it as well. What I believe N-man may be overlooking are the benefits of attempting to recall Sweeney. Roubian pointed out that since the successful recall in Colorado, no new anti-gun bills have been proposed, and in fact, the legislature is beginning to move in the opposite direction of restoring gun rights. Roubian and many of the rest of us believe that a recall effort, especially a successful one, will send a message to the legislature that defenders of 2A are a powerful group that they need to respect. Do we have a lot to lose with an unsuccessful recall? Probably, but not nearly as much as our founding fathers did when they took up their cause. The worst that can happen to us is further restrictions on our gun rights. But at least we'll be around to tell about it!

I plan to be there. Hope to see some of you there.

Can't say I really need it, but couldn't resist at that price. Thanks for posting.

Depends. In almost every state where gay marriage was put to a vote, the people rejected it. Yet the courts quickly overturned the will of the public, declaring it unconstitutional. Now gay marriage is nearly universal (pending SCOTUS ruling on it, but I would bet they are not going to change anything). (BTW, not saying that I'm for or against it, just pointing out the contrast with RKBA.) So it appears that gay marriage is a more important right than the Constitutionally enunciated right to keep and bear arms.

Their strategy is to bypass the NJ courts, since they realize there is no hope there, and go directly to the federal level.

Newtonian, I certainly agree with you on the merit of a get-out-the-vote strategy to attempt to create a more favorable political climate for our side. But how is it going to work even if we are successful, but are faced with a Democratic governor? In either case, I think an effort to recall Sweeney could be productive. I know what you mean about pro-gun people being abrasive and giving us a bad image. (See my notes on the gun violence forum in Bergen County last month.) But I think this is different. This is a case of using the political process to shift things in our favor.

Lol! Does anyone under 40 know who Bozo the Clown was? See you at the meeting.

The deal where it's shipped in the can appeals to my lazy side, as I don't have to put the stuff away. Just open the box, shove the can in with the rest of my ammo, and I'm done. I already have 1000 rounds of this sitting around from the last time it was on sale, but I'm thinking of getting more at this price. Can anyone tell me if this is decent stuff? I don't need deadly accurate, but does it cycle reliably, and is it reasonably accurate?

Good summary. And really, what's our alternative, be nice to Sweeney, and hope he's nice to us in return? How's that working out for us?

Yes, that's exactly the point, as NJ2AS has stated. It's the NJ firearms community sending a strong message to Trenton.

Crap! I've been trying to decide on a 9mm carbine, and had been considering that one. Any guesses why it's illegal in NJ?

Mine arrived yesterday in perfect condition. Have you had bad experiences with KGC, or was this just sour grapes?

I'm eager to hear as well. Haven't been there in a few weeks, so I'll await your report. I must say that Anthony spares no expense to provide an outstanding experience at his range.

No points for me, but I would prefer to be referred to as a choir boy. And to the OP, I'm kind of surprised you only have two. :-)

Excuse my naivety, but could someone please explain to me why the recoil spring on an AK has curves in it instead of just being straight?

Not true. Nappen covered this in a recent class I attended. There is a distinction between a switchblade or stiletto, which open by pressing a button; and an assisted opener, where one needs to push on the blade before it will open. The former require an "explainable purpose," while the latter are completely legal. That is true in most jurisdictions, but probably not in New York City, and apparently not in Philadelphia. Very interesting about the law in Philadelphia. I was unaware of that, and would certainly hate to do jail time (misdemeanor?) for having my folder. In situations like that, one of those heavy duty, "tactical" pens would come in handy. Surely one can't be arrested for having a pen!

Good class on Saturday. Solid training, and it's always fun to connect with other forum members to put some faces to the names on the board.

Just grabbed 10 boxes. Thanks for posting!

They said they were going to file within 2-3 weeks after the meeting, but one of the main proponents was dealing with a major illness. I have not heard anything further on it yet.

Stopped in there last night. Lots of rifles and shotguns on the shelf, but not much ammo. Some shotgun shells, and some 5.56.

I thought this was going to be a Wall Street report!

Looks really nice, but that is indeed a hefty price tag. I read threads like this with great interest, as I've been giving serious thought to adding a 9mm carbine to my collection.

Welcome Joe. Nice photos! Yes, it sounds like you are fully immersed. Lots of kindred spirits on this forum.

Caution: Not for those with a short attention span, but definitely worth the few minutes. THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT ASININE, INEXPLICABLE and PERILOUS ​ TPATH Commentary By: Dwight Kehoe SAPPA Group April 9, 2015 ~TPATH~ For the most part of the last two years the SAPPA Group has been researchingSecond Amendment rulings regarding New Jersey legislators, judges and appointed officials. Some of these rulings have been handed down from state courts and Federal courts, both District and Circuit. The most informative thing we have found is that there are almost no judges or justices who concern themselves with anything relating to support of the Constitution. Time and time again, their rulings and decisions have been made based purely on the belief that they have a right to change the scope, intent and concept of the Bill of Rights, if any parts therein run contrary to their basic ideology. Perilous? You bet it is. Despite the fact that the United States Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that no state can create and enforce laws which are prohibited by the Constitution, the lower courts ignore those rulings and continue to deny citizens the civil rights which our Founding Fathers declared, fought and died for. In order to support the leftist ideologues of the New Jersey state courts, the District and Circuit Courts have done what can only be described as oral and written contortionism. One would think that at some point the nonsensical reasoning these people have provided in order to continue their unconstitutional law making would have induced smirks or at least the raising of an eyebrow from the bench. Alas, when it comes to New Jersey, there appears to be no degree of stupidity capable of such elicitations. So, think this might be an exaggeration? Just in case you might, here are just two of the many arguments in support of absurd assumptions that these people have made over the several court filings concerning New Jersey's unconstitutional laws which prevent its citizens from employing their right of self defense. We wish we could point out that one of these two is more convoluted than the other, but they both present equally, a challenge to the concept of common sense. Just a bit of background for those who may not be aware. Several people have challenged New Jersey laws which on the face of them appear to allow citizens the right to carry a firearm. But for certain, that appearance is just that, an appearance. The intent is to obscure the actual application of the law by pretending to not violate the Bill of Rights. The part of the law which is possibly the most outlandish of the many outlandish laws infecting New Jersey's legal system is the term “justifiable need”. That very simple phrase was put in place for one reason and one reason only. That is to prevent every citizen except the very elite from ever being issued a carry permit. For those of us who went to school before the leftist teacher's unions and then Common Core had begun altering history and discouraging the thought process, the term “justifiable need” appears nowhere in the Second Amendment. While it quite clearly states that every citizen has the right to own and bear arms, it forbids any state or lawmaker from infringing on that right. Inexplicable Example One: The 3rd Circuit Court, without even the slightest giggle or snicker accepted the argument presented by the State of New Jersey that even though the laws they have been imposing on its people may well be unconstitutional, they have been violating those rights for such a long period of time, they should be allowed to keep the violation train heading down the track. Shall we extrapolate this absurdity to other legal dispositions in order to see the dangerous precedent such inanity might produce? We think we should. Simply put, according to New Jersey and agreed to by the 3rd Circuit, all one needs to do to not only escape punishment for violating a law, but to also be allowed to continue that violation, is to have gotten away with it for some unspecified period of time. So, counterfeiters, forgers (this may help Obama someday), burglars, bank robbers, rapists even terrorists, according to the 3rd Circuit, could go unpunished and allowed to continue their illegal endeavors, provided they didn't get caught too soon. Inexplicable Example Two: It might be difficult to fathom the possibility that Example One above could be overshadowed in its asininity, but hold on tightly to your Constitution because Example Two does it in spades. Again, accepted without equivocation by the majority in the 3rd Circuit was the idea proffered by New Jersey that a citizen of the United States, regardless of which state he resides in, is no longer protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution once he leaves the confines of his home. No, this is not a joke. It has been proffered several times and then agreed to by court jesters and never once did any one of them appear to be even the slightest bit embarrassed. The 3rd Circuit was duly informed by the State of New Jersey that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens while in their homes. Once that citizen leaves there he no longer has civil rights. A Liberal Trip Back In Time: The Founding Fathers, in a meeting and discussing the Declaration, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. TJ might have said to George, “Hey GW, the wording of this Second Amendment thing might give the wrong impression. Are you sure we want these peasants to think they can defend themselves from King George's marauders anywhere, even outside? Shouldn't we put a stipulation in the Amendment? You know, something like – Non-infringement ceases at your front door?" Then George would have replied, “ No Tom, we don't have to do that, we can count on that New Jersey Colony. There will be no shortage of infringers and abettors there. So let's save the ink.” Now Back To The Present and Reality: Just for a minute let us imagine that state legislators and Federal judges are not prevented from declaring where your rights start and where they stop. Would that not endanger every Constitutional Right and place the people in absolute control of man instead of law? Was not our Constitution written to prevent such a scenario? When the next appeal reaches the United States Supreme Court, and there will be one very soon, if the State of New Jersey, in conspiracy with the 3rd Circuit is allowed to claim they have the power to isolate and localize our civil rights regarding the Second Amendment, what future do any of the other rights have? Will some judge be able to declare that your right to freedom of religion ends at your door step? Will your right to free speech end there as well? How about your right to congregate for redress? Has it not been adjudicated that a person's right to privacy extends to his person, his vehicle and other locations? How is it possible then that one civil right is boundless while another is allowed to be restricted by state of New Jersey? Does not the 14th Amendment prohibit such activity? For certain, once we acquiesce any part of our rights, never again will any other part be safe. The next determination of where your rights begin and end might be relegated to your basement or possibly a closet. If this possibility does not shiver your timbers, maybe you should start at the top and read this again. Overwhelming statistics and facts compiled by the FBI over the past few decades prove unequivocally that where gun ownership by law abiding citizens is not infringed, crimes per capita are not just lower, they are much lower. Consequently, people are safer, property is secure and the pursuit of happiness is in full swing. Where law abiding citizens are not prevented from defending themselves, criminals are prevented from carefree pursuit of property not theirs. Many times phrases have been used in these court cases that look something like this. “We can't allow people to be armed. We don't want to see the wild, wild west in our streets.” This statement and others like it iterate the ideology of those violators of your rights. It clearly shows that they think they have the right to control the activity of the citizens, based upon their ideology and false beliefs. The Constitution, be damned. Some Wild West Facts: In states where the right to carry is not infringed, only a small percentage of citizens actually apply for a permit and even fewer strap on hardware to be taken wherever they go. The good thing however, is the criminal never knows who may be armed. That is what they call a presupposed warning. What most citizens here in New Jersey would like is to be able to carry a weapon, if they felt the need, without being illegally imperiled by this state. And to not be prevented from taking a weapon with them in their vehicle or at work or in the woods without the fear of violating one of the hundreds of gun laws that could land them in prison or convicted of a felony. It needs to be pointed out that even if the areas where law abiding citizens were not prevented from arming themselves were indeed more dangerous, the rights under the Constitution could still not be infringed. Legally at least. The Founders provided for changing things they may have gotten wrong. The Amendment process. All judges and legislators take an oath to defend the Constitution, not to legislate away parts they don't like. Communist governments and dictators do that.