leahcim

It would give you greater leeway for trips to the range, hunting, etc. than if you are transporting a handgun. E.g. would allow you to make unreasonable and unnecessary deviations or combine a range trip with other errands.

Is there any law proscribing or restricting target practice with a compound bow on my own property. E.g. minimum size requirement, bow-free zones, etc?

So I finally had a chance to ride my bicycle to Range 14 last Saturday. Nice weather, although a little humid. Just to make sure I was compliant with transport law, I had my RIA .45 fastened in its plastic case, inside a securely tied plastic trash bag, inside a zippered pannier--I only used the trash bag because I use the panniers for food as well and I am paranoid about Pb. No problems in transport--about 15 miles one way. I got to the range at 0830 and it was not crowded at all, shot from station Alpha. Absolutely no issues with the RO. Nice day to shoot!

"The people of New York City are much smarter than the New York City Health Department believes" I hope this is borne out in the public comment period. I do not have a problem with labeling requirements--I have a right to know what is in everything I buy for consumption. That is as far as the state should go. I should be free to choose what I eat and drink. The labeling requirement facilitates my choice. The state has NO compelling interest in my free choice to lifestyle, what I buy or sell, or entry into any legal contract. Unless, of course, the state is responsible for my healthcare--then there is a compelling government interest to control just about every choice I make.

I think that if someone is tresspassing IN MY HOUSE--especially at night when I am in bed--then it is reasonable to believe that their intention is to harm me or my family. I would definitely inquire as to their intentions, command them to stop, assess the situation and the person's mental and psychological state, physical ability, arms, additional intruders in her party; If the intruder(s) surrender or flees, then the primary issue is resolved. Otherwise one must assume--perhaps in a fraction of a second--malevolent intent. Who makes the determination of what constitutes resonable belief?

Arizona, Texas, NC, or Virginia. I also love my home state of Washington--and despite it being a "blue" state, the gun laws are not that bad. But I think my wife would hate the Seattle weather.

It seems that, at the time of its creation, 2a gave citizens the right to what was then "state-of-the-art" military technology. One could argue that was the intent. I know for sure that--even if it was legal as a bearable arm--I would run into serious zoning issues if I tried to erect an ICBM in my township.

Maybe you should draw up a lease for the space you will be staying in your friend's home and pay him $1 in rent for the time you are there. At least that would make it your legal residence in NJ. I think you could also store it at a range like Shore Shot or Brick Armory for a reasonable fee.

Welcome to the forum. I am in Manchester also. I have used Shore Shot and R14, prefer R14 as it is cheaper, closer, WAY easier to get to, and I prefer shooting outside--hours are limited though. Shore shot is okay, especially in the winter. But several people I have spoken with recently seem to prefer Brick Armory over SS. I have not been to CJRPC, but it looks really good too.

The IPO will prove to be profitable to Zuckerberg, Moskovitz, Parker, Thiel, Saverin, etc--and all the employees...and anyone who was short at the end of Friday. I am not saying it won't go up, but I just don't see the big growth going forward. While I have not shut my account off, I have dialed way back on what is shared and available. I like what an opinion piece from WSJ said, something like If you are not paying for a product, then you are not the customer, you are the product.

Great news--but really a shame that it took all this just to force these thugs to return his property. I love that response from the JAG when he was worried about his clearance: "‘You got arrested for carrying guns. That’s what you get paid for.’”

Interesting. I just read the wiki, which talks about this--apparently it is not legal in CA: "the Judge does not qualify as a "short-barreled shotgun" under the National Firearms Act of 1934 as its rifled barrel makes it a regular handgun.[2] However, the Judge is considered a short-barreled shotgun under California state law, which has a broader definition of "short-barreled shotgun," and the Judge is thus illegal to possess in that state."

How does that make it forged? I do not see anywhere on the card that says it must be fingerprinted or signed in front of a witness. If the PD forgot to have you sign it, would you have to go back and sign in their presence? It is your signature and your fingerprint. As long as you do it right it is not forged. If you used someone else's fingerprint, that would be a forgery.

Thanks. No one told me it is not legal--I was just looking at it and thought that--since it can shoot .410 and his being NJ--the state would probably classify it as a shotgun AND a handgun. And since it does not meet at least two shotgun requirements. I am glad to hear it is NJ Legal!

My garage is part of my house--it is attached, same structure, same foundation, different room--so would I be wrong to think that if someone is INSIDE my garage they are INSIDE my house? I have not tried it, but I think I could do it in 1-2 minutes even without windows--so I got the zip ties up there now!

http://www.taurususa.com/product-details.cfm?id=841&category=Revolver&toggle=tr&breadcrumbseries=MF2 Since this can shoot .410 is it considered a shotgun under NJ law? If so, is it banned under NJ law due to less-than 18" barrel AND pistol grip?

Absolutely--the ability to ammend is critical, but they made it difficult for a good reason.

Obviously they did not have a proper understanding of the document back then--kind of grabbing for straws on that one, so touche.

Good luck getting 38 states to ratify repealing ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights.

Let us know when you have it on the market.

And I am just happy my post made the top of page 6!

I agree that the 13th ammendment, 14, and pretty much everything else (except 18/21 and 16) are needed--but I would argue that the rights they address were embodied--at least as penumbra--in the original document. Having the clarification just strengthens it and makes it explicit.

Article III?

The document did not require change--it was ammended for clarification, but the original document applies to all. The concept of rights endowed to all was there from the beginning.

Just because they were considered such does not make it so. The practice was rifhtly determined to be a violation of our Constitution and it was corrected.