High Exposure

This is why we can't have nice things.....

I have an ADM Recon-X. If I could do it again, I would get a Recon-H. After playing with a bunch of variable optics over the summer, I have discovered that mounts that place the center of the optic at 1.93". I'm currently using it on a rifle with a Sully stock. Thinking about changing that to something else. One of the ideas I had was to use an A2.

How's the eye relief with that A2 stock? If I'm not just right behind my Strike Eagle, I get a lot of shadow at 6x.

Lol! I give you props for the clip from "Evolution". That was a pretty dumb movie, but that was by far the funniest part. I didn't think anyone even remembered that flick…

Again, for the cheap seats - I never said the ban on ownership of a stun gun would not be lifted at some point. I said that right now the law prohibiting the possession of a Stun Gun still applies. I said that until a judge makes case law with a decision abrogating the current law or legislation is passed changing the current law, it is still illegal for a citizen (even a cop) to own a stun gun. I also said that I believe, based in the AG's statements, that the law would soon be amended to allow the ownership of CED/Stun Guns. Now, neither of those news articles address the concealed carry of a stun gun - just the ownership. Again, my position was that any new interpretation of 2C:39-3h will allow you to own a stun gun. However, the AG's stated opinion that the ban on ownership is unconstitutional and the subsequent proposed change in the law does not address anything in 2:39-5, that would allow you to carry the device on your person outside your home for protection. My final point in the discussion was this - My opinion Formed after having extensive experience with a Taser as a user and instructor in NJ and knowing where it falls under NJ use of force guidelines, I feel that the Taser is not an appropriate tool for self defense in NJ either in your home or on the street. If you look at the totality of the laws governing self defense by a citizen in this state, you would be better served with a firearm than a stun gun even when they become legal. In any situation where a stun gun is the right answer, a citizen would be obligated to retreat from that danger. In a situation where you are either unable to, or not required to, retreat - you would be better served using a firearm to protect yourself. Again, that is my opinion after teaching hundreds of NJ LEOs and researching dozens of real world uses of a CED by Officers and citizens alike across the country through the lens of NJ self defense laws. Now, Pete's question is the important one and cuts to the heart of the matter. And my answer to that is I believe that after making the ownership of a CED legal, the ability to carry a stun gun will not be treated any differently than the ability to carry/transport a handgun in NJ. This is not to say I agree with this outcome or even want this to be the case. It is merely what I think will be the final outcome of this. My plate remains empty at this time. If, however, the ability to carry a stun gun on your person in NJ, in the same manner as someone could CCW a pistol in a free state, I will roast the bird myself.

As a LEO, I can carry mags with more than 15 rounds on duty or when acting in an official capacity. It's when I am shooting for myself or using mags in a personal or unofficial role without permission that it gets tricky...

^^^ This all day long. Also, this: is false. A 9mm carbine will weigh and handle the same as a .233 counterpart. Additionally, a .223 has less felt recoil and ballistically will lose energy faster and become less likely to injure someone than any handgun or shotgun round if it misses and passes through normal stateside construction materials before striking someone.

Just think how well smartgun biometric ID tech will work of your hands are sweaty, wet, or god forbid bloody? Bad juju all around. If your HD/SD plan includes the use of a firearm and you can't use said firearm for self defense on your worst day, it's beyond useless.

Awesome, halfway there. Spoke to Joe and he is all for extending this til Friday. Tell your buds on the board to get in here. Let's make someone's day!

Well you have two choices for loaded capacity of a Taser - 1 cartridge, or 2. X26 and the C models are only capable of loading a single cartridge at a time. The X2 (not sure if they will sell this model to non LEO) has 2 cartridges bays that can be loaded and fires in a semi-auto mode, automatically switching from one bay to the next after firing. Remember, each trigger press fires 2 projectiles and both need to hit in a muscular area with at least 4.5" of speed between the probes for the best chance for it to work as desired. Hmmmm..... to muddy the waters further... If a Taser is considered a firearm by definition in NJ, and each trigger press fires 2 projectiles simultaneously, is it a machine gun? Or.... Since the barrels have no rifling and each projectile has its own barrel, would it now be considered a short double barreled shotgun or even an AOW?

Zeke, What source? I just don't understand. If you don't want to "out your source" why even mention having one in the first place? Especially out of the blue, in such a random manner. Anyway..... I still don't know what I am supposed to eat crow over. Nothing has changed with this public statement of opinion regarding the Constitutionality of a NJ law - the AG's opinion doesn't change the NJ law that is in effect. The State may decline to prosecute, but it is still lawful to arrest and charge someone with 2c:39-3h until a judge or some legislation is passed to say otherwise. At this time Caetano v. Mass has no bearing on CCW or AWB laws in NJ. It should lead to a changing of the statute and remove "stun guns" from being prohibited in and of themselves in our lovely State, but that's about it. Again, reading the Supreme Court decision for Caetano: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf It appears that their decision dealt with Caetano's possession in terms of ownership of a weapon that is prohibited by statute in Mass. - not necessarily that she was carrying it on her person illegally at the time of her arrest. She was charged with Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 140, §131J which bans entirely the possession of an electrical weapon: Similar to being charged in NJ for 2C:39-3h - possession of a Stun Gun instead of 2C:39-4 - Possession of a legal weapon for unlawful purposes, or 2C:39-5 - Unlawful possession of a weapon. (39-4 is what you would be charged with for committing a crime with an otherwise legal weapon and 39-5 is what you would be charged with if found carrying a handgun sans CCW license). Again, I would love to see Shall Issue CCW in NJ. I just don't think a public remark regarding the AG's opinion on a Stun Gun case is going to do it.

Agreed. I am LEO and I follow the one Gun law. There are other exemptions out there if I decided I needed one.

Fri - Sunday are typically slower here than weekdays - I have faith. talked to Joe and if we get 10 by tomorrow night he's OK with extending the deadline. As for non-forum members, tell them to sign up! Come for the raffle, stay for the community, friendship, and discussion. Win-win-win!

Awesome! And just for FYI: Any polymer framed gun is eligible. Not just Glocks.

Same here. I'm LEO, I carry everyday.

Brother, I would love nothing more than to eat a big plate of Crow on this. I would love to be wrong and have this taser opinion by the AG open the floodgates to "shall issue" CCW in this state. I just don't see it. Maybe I am a pessimist.

Purely playing Devils Advocate here: Wouldn't a Taser be defined as a handgun in NJ, based on the definitions of a "firearm" and a "handgun"? A CED uses a device designed to be fired by one hand that uses compressed gas to fire a missle intended to cause injury by penetrating the skin - which in NJ is considered significant injury making, an aggravating factor in charging decisions. So, just using the relevant parts of the definition of a Firearm in NJ you get: "Firearm or firearms" means any handgun, or any gun, device or instrument in the nature of a weapon from which may be fired or ejected any solid projectile, missile or bullet. It shall also include, without limitation, any firearm which is in the nature of a pistol or other weapon of a similar nature in which the propelling force is compressed or other gas, or vapor, air or compressed air and ejecting a bullet or missile smaller than three-eighths of an inch in diameter, with sufficient force to injure a person. ^^^^ That's a Taser So by NJ definition of firearm, even though they would now be legal to own, won't a CED be classified as a firearm (BB guns are, they work in a similar manner using compressed gas to fire a solid projectile small than 3/8" with the ability to cause injury)? Add to that the fact that a Taser is designed to be fired with one hand, doesn't that make it a handgun? Even though no statute specifically states you can't carry a Taser/CED won't the statutes that already prohibit the carrying of a firearm without a permit apply to the Taser as well?

3: Excellent. In your opinion, will the end of the ban on ownership of "stun guns" allow the carry of the devices on your person?

I'm trying to switch my agency to 9mm. Shooting Fed HST there is no difference in terminal ballistics, but on the shooters end there are lots of advantages. I only shoot .40 now because I have to.

Yeah. I shot one of the ATEI Roland Specials out at Pat's Celebration in Ohio (In fact "Roland" was there along with the P&S crew) and fell in love. That thing shoots flat and fast. I don't think it would be great in a team environment - that brake pushes gas pretty good - but for a CCW gun, it shines. I am going to convert my G23 into a 9mm Roland Special - working on sourcing the parts and getting them in.

That's what she said! :rofl: Nice looking pistolas brothers!