High Exposure

It happens. I marked my work bench so I can lay them down on the table real quick and gauge them.

Nowhere in this thread does it say a flash hider is illegal in and of itself. It is said that it is an inappropriate choice for an AR since it adds a 3rd "evil" feature, making the rifle an "assault rifle" and thereby prohibited. I don't see the fail you see....

What makes your choice of rifle ammo any less important than your choice of pistol ammo for HD? If you have to send anything downrange to stop a threat does it matter if it's rifle or pistol? Ammo selection is just as important for both. Personally, an AR is my primary "bump in the night" gun. If I am giving someone the bees, I want to make sure that the ammo I have will perform the best way possible in my house ie: best terminal effects on target when I hit, with the least amount of energy retained after passing through walls if I miss. Precise fire that hits a threat is much more effective than spray and pray all around your threat. I'd rather get two hits that work than 20 misses that go God knows where.

Ehhhhhhhhhh..... Not so much. There are definitely a range of choices that run from completely terrible to very excellent for HD ammo in a rifle.

There are actually two lengths for the action spring depending on if you have a rifle length or carbine length reveiver extension. With each action spring type - carbine or rifle length, there is an acceptable range. Make sure you have the correct spring for the receiver extension you're using. Then make sure it is within the acceptable range.

What brand lower and what brandLPK? Something is out of spec... Check to make sure the trigger group springs are placed correctly. The springs should hold the pins in place with the grooves on them. You shouldn't need anti-walk pins.

Marty, I know you posted it but I can't find it: What are the barrel specs? Make? Chamber? What ammo were you shooting? Thanks.

Fed HST

If you are invited, that means your house has to be broken into while you are having dinner. (Cross thread shenanigans from here: http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/80846-if-you-use-your-gun-this-is-what-youre-up-against/?p=1030202)

This. I retract my previous position and say good to go.

I would say no-go. Too much of a grey area and there are hundreds of other lowers you can choose from. Why buy a potential issue when you can avoid it.

Hey, I like meats cooked over a fire, good beer, and quality outdoor wear. Don't hate.

Definitive source, statute, or case law for this?

I'll give you a dollar for it.

Meh. Agree to disagree. You bought a product that is legal to own and not defective. You knew they called it a flash hider and chose to gamble that the product description was incorrect - guess what? It was not. You rolled the dice and came up craps. I've done it before and I am sure I'll do it again. Some of the parts I kept and go into the parts bin. Other times, I requested to return them. When I did send them back, I paid the return shipping and the restocking fee as necessary. It was my mistake for not researching the product. Side note - I honestly can't believe you looked at the pictures of that device and thought it was anything but a FH. The Titanium BS is garbage, but doesn't change anything in this case. This isn't about them being clueless or trying to spin some black magic BS to make their product seem more desirable. It does however put them on my NFE list for doing business with them.

I don't buy the "titanium increases the flash" BS either. But that's beside the point at hand. Keep in mind that a FH in and of itself isn't illegal. For example, if you don't have a pistol grip - think mini 14, SKS, Ares SCR - or the rifle is not semi-auto - think Mossberg MVP - the FH is 100% legal and fine. There is nothing wrong with selling a flash hider to people in NJ as it isn't illegal on its ow until you install it on a semi-auto rifle that already has 2 of the "evil" features. That responsibility is on the buyer not the seller. We bitch companies won't sell adjustable stock parts to NJ so we can pin them or install them on an 870 making them legal. We routinely state that it is up to the buyer to use the products in a manner that won't get them in trouble, not the seller to determine the legality of ownership. Then you say they shouldn't sell it to NJ so someone gets in trouble. It can't be both ways. That being said, you purchased a product that you can't use. It wasn't defective, it just isn't what you wanted. You said yourself in the other thread - http://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/80848-titanium-compensators/?fromsearch=1 that it says "flash hider" in the description and you were taking a chance that it was mis-labeled in the product description: And you talked about buying it with the intention of sending it back if it didn't work for you: Personally, I think you should send it back on your dime for shipping and if the re-stocking fee is reasonable you should pay that as well. This wasn't their mistake, it was your experiment, buying a muzzle device - that is legal to own in NJ - that didn't work out. Why should they cover it? Just my opinion.

Why don't you just ask for a RA# and a refund as the product doesn't meet your needs. Most companies won't say no to that.

I don't know. I wasn't working there that day. Do you know why? The IACP recommended ratio for police to residents is 2.5 officers per 1000 people. That's not working patrol at every moment, that's total department manpower spread across all shifts, including admin and non patrol division ie: traffic, detectives, etc... And includes guys on their days off. If they are staffed like my agency - we have a town of ~16000 residents + 5000 people moving through town at any time between traffic, work, shopping - so figure 21000 people on days and 16000 at night. We have a minimum manpower allowance of 2 guys working patrol - do the math. We can't be everywhere all the time. Maybe one of the other residents in that sector had an emergency that tied up resources. Maybe they were responding from further away than the homeowner was and she beat them there. Maybe they were on a mealbreak. I do know that under Use of Force Guidelines under the 4th Amendment a cop shouldn't have shot that guy*. No one is denying that the homeowner is the victim here. But, being a victim, in and of itself, is not an appropriate reason to use DPF. If she saw this guy the next day ditty-bopping down the street after stealing her stuff could she confront him then and shoot him? She is still a victim. He still stole her property and knows where she lives. Maybe he will come back tomorrow and assault her and she is scared. *Caveat: under those circumstances as told by the media

WTF does that have to do with anything?# 6 "Thou shall not murder" Again, I don't have a problem with this kid ceasing to be an earthly oxygen consumer. Sounds like he had it coming - if not that day, another day soon. Would I be righteously pissed as a victim? You bet! Would I want him to pay for violating my home? Absolutely. Am I going to use deadly force against him if he is not a danger to me and mine? Nope. Am I going to leave a place of safety to single handedly investigate a crime and cause the dangerous situation that could either get me hurt/killed or cause me to hurt/kill someone else over a TV? Absolutely not. There is not a self defense expert on the planet that will tell you to clear a structure alone in order to protect property. Quick scenario: So, you and your whole family are at my house across town for a BBQ. We are hanging out and you get a call from ADT saying your alarm is going off. You check your home camera system on your phone and see Rufus climbing in through a window. You hop in your car and drive 10 minutes to your house after calling 911 to report the crime. You get home and see Rufus climbing out the window with your iPad in his hands. You are completely safe in your car a block away. You are saying SYG and Castle Doctrine allows you to use deadly force to keep him from running away with your stuff? Say he puts the stuff down before running away - he no longer has your property. DPF (deadly physical force) is applicable? Yes, I know I can use deadly force if I am in fear of death or significant bodily injury. Now, how do I prove I am in fear of a burglar if I chase him down and confront him? How afraid am I of this guy if I put my hands on him, get in his face, and demand my stuff back? How afraid are you of a burglar in your empty home causing you serious bodily injury or killing you if you are across town? Or even in your car down the block? I just don't see how jeopardizing my safety, risking prison time, or spending my last dollar in civil court defending my actions is worth being able to watch American Idol on my 65" flatscreen tonight. There are many things in my life more precious to me that I will defend to the death or risk my freedom or fortune on before my stuff.

You are correct, violence occurs with a quickness that the uninitiated will never comprehend. It's not quick, clean, and choreographed like you see on television or in the movies. It's fast, brutal, and unforgiving. That being said, we do not operate under rules of engagement as civilians (LE or armed citizen) CONUS. The use of deadly force in a self-defense situation is guided by Constitutionally approved Use of Force guidelines - part of which state that you cannot create the dangerous situation which precipitated the need to use deadly force in an encounter. A cop can not jump in front of a speeding car and then shoot the driver under the auspice of "I feared for my life, he was going to run me over". You cannot stumble through the worst part of town at zero dark 30, pretending to be intoxicated, with hundred dollar bills falling out of your pockets, in order to lure a thug into robbing you so you can shoot him. Not in the PRNJ, and not in Free America.

Again, I thought there was a requirement of immediacy to apply Castle Doctrine/SYG to self defense situations. Does driving home from a place of safety to confront a potential burglar in your empty house qualify as standing your ground? I am under the assumption, and I may be wrong here, that standing your ground means just that. Stand YOUR ground with no duty to retreat which I fully endorse. I did not think it was permission to chase down someone who committed a property crime. Being home and attempting to detain a burglar while awaiting police after committing theft (completely valid and appropriate) and the situation becomes violent and you end up killing them in self defense is a very different situation than what we have here (based on media reports). Let me be clear, once the confrontation turned violent I agree with her choice to defend herself and the manner in which she did it - she had every right as its better to be alive in court than dead in the ground. I am questioning her decision making process prior to confronting this guy. Playing Devil's Advocate - In this instance, if she did in fact chase him down and started the altercation while he was attempting to flee the scene (having just committed a property crime in the very recent past, but was currently breaking no laws) and he ended up killing her, was he standing his ground?

True. Her life can't be replaced - but will her life be the same after she killed someone? If she would have stayed in her car she would also still have her life and she would have no legal trouble either. The only difference is she wouldn't have a TV.

No. If you're going to shoot, use the most effective weapon system you have at hand. There are no half measures in self-defense - The very definition of which is "it's going to be you or it's going to be me." If that's what it's come down to, I'm gonna do my best to make sure that it's you, and not me, to take that ride in the ambulance. You always shoot to stop the aggressive and dangerous behavior of your attacker. You never shoot to wound, to maim, to scare, or to injure.

Ok, so the perp was climbing out window. Which side of the window was she on? Sounds to me like she was outside her home. Maybe she was between this mope and his freedom. Maybe he put his hand in his pocket and said to her "Move out of my way or I am going to kill you". See, the thing is once she got out of her car we don't know what happend That said, if this guy was armed with a firearm the headline could have been much different. I agree with Sig226guyNJ: In my mind the right answer was for her to drive away - not in order to avoid shooting this kid - stupid games/stupid prizes and all - but for her safety. She put herself in harms way. I would be pissed off if my wife/sister/mother drove home, saw a bad guy climbing out the window and got out and tried to stop him. Does Castle Doctrine/SYG include driving home from another location to defend your property? I always assumed (possibly incorrectly) that Castle/SYG had an element of immediacy to it - if you didn't do something RIGHT NOW you were in danger of death or serious bodily injury - not, my house alarm is going off, I'm going to drive home and investigate. If someone is inside I will purposefully put myself in harms way so I can use deadly force. I don't know... If her kids were inside, that's another story.

Yes, inquiring minds want to know!