Underdog

I think the oil speculators have found something new.

If the government is buying it all up, I wonder if its your stimulus money hard at work? Or maybe its just the money they keep printing to cause hyper-inflation. I hope that its not going to Iran, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. The government is probably using the money stolen from Medicare which has been set aside to implement Obamacare. And, this can be justified because maybe they want to lower the cost of treating all those gun wounds... No bullets, no gun wounds, and besides, criminals don't know how to reload. Or more likely, they are pandering to one of their main lobbyists and want to keep the criminals alive so that those practicing the law have opportunities to generate more money through newer acts of criminalism. I heard the attorneys in states where concealed carry is allowed, well they are suffering and have scaled down to Chevy Volts. Maybe we are sending it to Mexico so that they can practice with their newly acquired firearms. Maybe Trenton will have an ammo buyback program and up the cost of gun ownership to help supplement it!

With a G19 and a PPQ, the FNS would be largely duplicate and not necessary. Also, FNH seems to be jumping all around and you cannot be sure that that gun and or parts will be available in the future. Additionally, 15-rounders are not made for it. You could use a larger framed 9mm, but since you aren't interested in a Matte Stainless CZ 75B (my choice), I would get an M9A1, especially a stainless one if it is available, and one with a removable front sight. On a limited budget, my choice would be a stainless Taurus PT92, especially if it can be found with the new rail. The Beretta will hold its value better over the Taurus, magazines will be cheaper, and parts will more readily be available. Taurus does have a lifetime warranty, though, and could be carried "cocked and locked". If you love the Taurus PT1911 in 38 super, then why not get another one in 9mm, especially a stainless one. If you don't, then don't get another. You seem to have the .45s covered with the Scorpion and the XDM. For the most part, you have 9s covered, except for a larger combat one. You are a little light on .40 S&W guns. However, as a peace officer of caliber, you might have a way of feeding your .40. If so, then I would consider something in it. But, since it isn't my favorite caliber, I won't recommend anything except maybe the Beretta or the Taurus 92ish versions in .40 (96?), or the rocking Glock 24 (which was curiously enough left off your list). All things considered, I would probably get a Beretta 92A1 off of your list. I am not sure what caliber your P250 is in, but I know its not .22LR. It appears from your list that you are missing a .22LR handgun. In fact, your list seems to be lacking anything in .22LR and you should consider the following: Ruger Mark II (find an older target model in mint condition in stainless w/ a 5.5" barrel), or if you really would prefer it a nice Ruger .22/45, but I prefer the all-steel version A quality older Colt Woodsman in .22LR - won't go down in value and will most likely be very sweet S&W 617 (everyone needs a .22 revolver of some kind, but I know, revolvers aren't on your list, really). An SP101 in 9mm might also be a neat addition. But this .22 would be versatile and kind of neat and find a niche in your collection, and since you can concealed carry, it might be the ticket if you can find it somewhere. http://www.championf...1-8-p/hgmsc.htm Again, from your list, get the Beretta, especially if you find a used one in nice shape. You might want to consider the 96A1, with adjustable rear sight.

That's a tough one. If they are good to you then you don't want to harass them, however, if you are stopped and have to show it, the officer might not consider it valid.

I don't want to sound alarmist, but I don't trust this government and its agendas. Instead of going after the right to bear arms, it makes a lot of sense to go after the ammunition, instead, and to largely make a lot of paperweights. I would suggest acquiring a variety of guns in different calibers, just in case some of the more common calibers, such as military calibers, become controlled, overpriced, and/or unavailable. The self-fulfilling rumors could even have come from this government. There is much more brewing behind the scenes than most Americans are aware of.

FNS-9

And, I think everything you have needs to be on the books.

I believe you can also own things that are not legal in NJ to the general public, but which are on the C&R list. However, that doesn't mean you can bring them to the range.

And in order for them to finally irradiate slavery they created a country that had the potential to do this. They knew that they would not be able to establish a democratic republic to carry this out if they pressed too hard to end slavery. The union would not have taken hold. Instead, they waited. They waited quite a few years and then slavery was ended. Many at the time of the drafting of the Constitution envisioned that outcome and sacrificed for it.

If they go out to film, then their should be a buffer of decent human beings that nonviolently occupy the space between the funeral and those that would cause hurt. I would be willing to take up more than my 20 minutes stuck in traffic to do this for someone that gave up his or her life for me and my country.

Yes, but out in public you have less expectations of privacy, and unfortunately, your job is in public. What kind of point was that?

What he does with those hypothetical pictures might be against the law. As a side point. I remember when the NJ state police was going to PA and photographing cars with NJ plates in the parking lots. Until people attending the show started photographing them. Then they hightailed it out of there. I would whip out my camera and make sure I got plenty of shots of that guy doing what he was doing.

Yes, a bunch of unelected lawyers that use a power not outlined in the Constitution (oops, there it is again), judicial review, to decide what they believe is constitutional often based on their own prejudices and agenda.... Comforting.

Yes, I understand it keeps your kids in pizza. And, yes, I imagine the constitution gets in your way of doing your job way too much.

The abusive powers of police in other nations is exactly part of my point. I don't want it here, and whether you care to admit it or not, or maybe you cannot see it, that type of abuse is already escalating here. It starts with these stops. But, where does this use of power and authority stop? At what point would law enforcement be crossing the line in an inconveniencing sort of way?

I love the Ruger LCR and I wish Ruger would come out with various size/style grips for Ruger LCRs such as a slightly larger one, and I wish that Ruger would adopt a couple of variations in models... Ruger LCR Combo that would handle both .22LR and .22WMR Ruger LCR 9mm with moon clips A nine would be spectacular as a backup carry gun, and probably would be comparable to one with .38 +Ps.

Maybe, then, just as with politicians, law enforcement officers should be citizens that go on with their lives after doing a tour of the streets. Maybe there should not be career officers or politicians. There has to be a higher standard when you carry that badge and have that power; and if burn-out and cynicism are the norm, perhaps it's time for something new, or at least a vacation. Besides it might do good for young adults to have a "tour of duty" after getting out of high school/college.

Incidentally, as OP, I did not question the constitutionality of the stop. However, I don't think it was right. Just because it is within the full scope and powers to do so, doesn't mean it is warranted or just. But, since you asked, I think it is harmful to the perception of the public toward the police AND that it is part and parcel of the trend toward a police state, and that, if anything it desensitizes the people, just as in the airports.

If you are in law enforcement and your views lead you to feel that that is your job, then I don't want you as a peace officer. Your job is not to protect me from myself.

My thoughts, exactly. Thanks for sharing this.

Good for you.... And Constitutionally Speaking, welcome. I wish you a happy and healthy constitution.

This is ridiculous. Police are not hated by the public. I for one don't hate the police. The police have a role to function as peace officers. It is not their duty to save the public at large from itself. And, although there is no law against looking in someone's vehicle as they pass without probable cause, it is an unwarranted and inappropriate use of power to randomly stop motorists, etc. at these check points. And, just as in OTHER professions, the police have a standard to live up to. Since I hold those in uniform to such a high level of esteem, I think that things like this are damaging to the law enforcement profession (although it keeps their children eating pizza). I would rather that they spend their time finding out whose throwing rocks down on cars than in causing me (and approximately 2000 other citizens) to lose 20 minutes of my time. And, since I don't read and/or support newspapers that spew liberal nonsense, I must have missed the advertised check point. And, as long as you are going to twist my original post, although I wasn't taking a sick child to the hospital, that time that was taken from me unjustly, rather than unlawfully, could have made the difference for my family.

If that is true, then it is abuse of power.

If that is true, then why every other car and not all cars?

OK, so it was the second day in a row during rush hour traffic in which a local PD was stopping traffic just south of the Chester area on Route 206. I assume that they were looking for seat belts and or cell phones, but, they were also stopping every OTHER car and walking around and looking in the windows of the car, itself. What is this about, and why does a local PD feel that it has the right to significantly slow down traffic and check in people's cars like that without probable cause? Either there is some important thing they are searching for, or they are most likely, in my humble opinion, overstepping their boundaries. And, if it was a specific issue, then why every other car? If it was of a significant incidence-related search, then I would think that it would be more a state police issue. If it is just a brainstorm of that PD, and that is what it appears to be, then it seems that we are continuously approaching a police state and being subjected to abuse. Any other thoughts? Experiences? Forum officers reading this... Please give somewhat of an explanation. I am not disrespecting those in uniform and the jobs they do, however, I am trying to wrap my head around this.