jackandjill

Read the following for a case involving family transaction and monetary exchange. https://www.nraila.org/articles/20141107/supreme-court-grants-batfe-broad-leeway-on-straw-purchase-rules-in-abramski-v-united-states Note: This case is also a good example for anyone who thinks "but who is going to know...".

Remington 870. didnt realize you bought the Mossberg.

Dont forget $60 rebate.

You do not send any paperwork to ATF or any other party for long guns in NJ. As far as ATF / Feds is considered, you took possession of those rifles legally (per their own instructions). Remember, Form 4473 clearly says YOU cannot gift the firearms to an otherwise prohibited person and you cannot gift in exchange for money, services etc. At the time of this surprise reveal, have your parents fill the NJ Certificate Of Eligibility (link below), two per each firearm. You keep one copy of each and your parent keeps a copy. Also remember that when you gift the long gun, you are gifting to specific parent and thats who should fill out the COE. And you are done. http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/sp-634.pdf IANAL. BTW, Dont let anyone tell you all of this is a loophole. Its not. Its the law and good number of firearms change hands in face to face transactions between law abiding citizens who are not prohibited from owning and possessing firearms. I strongly suggest you pick a NJ FFL who is active on these forums. Ask for recommendations if you need help finding one.

Are you planning to get them new rifles or planning to gift the ones you already have in your possession ? If new, decide if you will be purchasing at an NJ FFL or ordering online for deliver to NJ FFL. Make sure its a NJ FFL who knows the law and is comfortable with gift transfers, tell them you want to pay for the rifles. When rifles are ready to be transferred, take/have your parents to FFL. They will fill the forms and take the stuff home. If this is going to be a surprise gift, you may take transfer of rifles, bring them home and gift them per ATF 4473. I would also make sure my parents DO NOT give me any money or other stuff in exchange for or towards that firearm gift. Even if its a small, friendly, benign gesture, could get someone in trouble. To cover NJ laws, I would have them fill out the NJ COE at the time of gift at home. ------------------ ATF 4473. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr. Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black) , Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer "YES" to question 11.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 922(g), (n) or (x).

You have to excuse me. I have certain opinion of people who do more of writing and less of doing. But I promise, I will keep open mind, read them all through and see which specific cases Dr. Vieira actually argued in front of SCOTUS. Specially if any one of them involved 2A and militia. I will also assure you that I have neither inclination nor energy to argue with anyone. If stuff gets done, all the better. I have used those words without much thought knowing very well someone is going to spend too much time nitpicking it. I am going to leave it at that. I am 99% positive I know what your game plan is. PM me with details of your game plan and I am all ears. If someone like Dr. Vieira actually signs up to take up the lead , even better. Looking forward to listening to your ideas and game plan on a separate thread, a website or PM. May be we will meet for a breakfast if you are in Northern NJ. I am not taking shot anyone, much less Dr. Vieira, but my personal philosophy is to respect the idiot who did something more than a scholar who just preaches. Whether we like it or not, if WE (whoever that may be) cannot convince enough gun owners about a plan, then WE haven't tried hard enough OR the plan is flawed (practically). We can argue why its a good plan until cows come home, with no practical value. Reminds me of a time when I complained to my boss about how I had great plan but not getting the resources I wanted from upper management. That everyone in upper management was idiots for not seeing my plan blah blah blah. Her response was "any idiot can execute given enough resources". Her second comment was "if you couldnt convince those idiots, what does it say about YOUR skill". Arguments aside, there is lot of truth to it.

Can you quote some of those landmark cases ? I want to read and educate myself about Dr. Vieira. And tell Dr. Vieira (or anyone else for that matter) that I will sell one of the firearms and donate proceeds (a grand atleast) to anyone who successfully brings a "collective private militia" case before SCOTUS.

@sota @T Bill Thanks both. Done.

Yes I read the Heller case and the arguments. I will say same again, nobody knows WHY SCOTUS asks certain question. They could use responses to decide in your favor or use them against you or taken you down a rabbit hole. If anyone got better ideas, better skill or better execution strategy, they should pick a case, fund it, find proper representation who is willing to put forth appropriate argument. Complaining about what someone may or may not have done doesn't solve the problem. All I see in Mr. Edwin rant (thats right, I called it a rant) is "my-argument-better-than-their-why-dont-they-ever-listen-to-me". Now, if that was to come from someone who actually went to SCOTUS on their own merit, presented his/her argument directly, won a case (even if they lost), then I (and million others) will listen.

Agreed. BTW, my comment about Mr. Edwin shutting up, is more to do his specific approach in this case. He is right on many aspects related basis of 2A etc, but I do not support forcing that onto an unwilling plaintiff.

Agreed. MD & its courts are traitors to the Constitution and personal freedoms. They know what would happen if they directly come out against 2A, so they are dancing around. Unfortunately SCOTUS is no better either. They know the real answer too, but don't want to say one way or the other.

Thanks. Just ordered 556 bulk from Palmetto, thats coming to about 0.25/rnd after rebate. Any source that still has 9mm in stock ?

I can see argument on both sides. SCOTUS is notorious for not addressing 2A questions, especially if its presented in more than single, specific context. Like it or not, thats the way they are. So a typical legal strategy always has been to present single, specific question that builds on previous SCOTUS ruling. The trick was to give SCOTUS incentive to move only a "little bit". Following that strategy, Kolbe is trying to take down MD patently anti-2A (it was fun reading that ruling from MD court) decision by posing very small question of "keeping newly banned weapons at home for self-defense". Its a small leap for SCOTUS from their earlier Heller decision and defendants are hoping SCOTUS will take that leap and rule against MD. IF SCOTUS indeed does that, it will at least scrap much of MD ruling about "sale, purchase, transport" crap. On the other hand, Mr. Edwin proposes to shake the tree or at least present information suggesting to shake the tree. SCOTUS is NOT stupid. They may read amicus or use them as toilet paper or just to to warm the house on cold days. But SCOTUS could also skirt the issue and could use information from any amicus as basis to skirt the issue. In that sense, amicus could provide broad enough pathway for SCOTUS to weasel out (again). Of course, they could do that without amicus too. If plaintiff does not want Mr. Edwin's amicus or help, then Mr. Edwin should simply shut up, find his own case to fund and take it to SCOTUS. On a related note, everyone should read that MD ruling. Its coming to NJ sooner than later. Scary stuff.

A+ for effort.

I need some 9mm and 223/556. Any recommendation on place / site to buy ?

PM sent. PM sent.

I got one right over the border in NY. I can never have too many hosting spots :-). Thanks for asking.

The design and architecture behind original "internet" was rooted in the idea of scalable, decentralized and fault tolerant "network" that work in cooperation and collaboration. WAY different from "forced socialism and robbing people". It was inherently "neutral" and collaborative. Around the same time, telcom deregulation kicked in, opening the traditional telcom as "common carrier platform". Technology become available to build "internet" over existing telcom - dialup. Tom, Dick and Harry entered the market providing "internet" services. AOL is one such but huge success example. Along the way, Cable Companies who already had wires laid (much like old TelComs) with the help of favorable regulations providing right-of-way etc, figured technology to route "internet" over existing wire. Its important to remember, in either cases, Companies got LOT of freebies to lay the wires. They DID NOT (and still DO NOT) buy land. They get rights in exchange for promise of playing nice in general. Everyone played along and nice for a while, UNTIL streaming business really kicked off and started to threaten the traditional cable / tv business. In the meantime lot of unholy mergers & acquisitions happened. Instead of staying ahead of the competition (duh!), " traditional media" companies, empowered by merges & acquisitions, started to hatch plans on how to disrupt their new competition. Some ahole (you see the CEO complaining about "sharing" in the link below) figured that its "their" network and other companies like Netflix / Amazon / Google etc were "taking advantage" of it. This is despite the fact that customer (you and I) paid market prices to cable / service provider companies. Thats when things started to roll down the hill. Rest is summarized in the link below (atleast until 2013). EDIT: Its important to note that, by design, all participants "pays". If you were to look at Internet as a "Tree" every leaf pays "down" towards the trunk and every node in the root pays "up" to the trunk. So no one is really "taking advantage" of any cable company or provider. For example, Google, Netflix etc pay their share to be connected to "Internet" just like we pay monthly fee to be connected to that net. In summary, the current state of "Net Neutrality" is Cable / Local providers (and their media big bosses) own making. https://www.pcworld.com/article/2048209/net-neutrality-at-the-us-fcc-a-brief-history.html

I need thicker glasses.

All I see in that pic as third option is "FULL LIBTURD". Apparently it just means crazy liberals. You are in SAFE SPACE when it comes to NJ laws regarding that posted lower. Since its SNOWFLAKE lower with Unicorn, you are extra safe. Paint it with RAINBOW colors if you are still worried about it.

A large (enough) corporation is as much of a threat to personal freedoms and individual rights as a large corrupted Govt. If anyone want a proof, look no further than East India Tea Company. Once these Corporations took advantage of dished out monopolies, fraction-of-penny-over-dollar auctions from FCC, they have become bit*ch of People. If they want to turn around and cry "injustice", they better get ready to pay for the public land used for every trench dug, cable laid, tower erected and air-waves procured. Lets also not forget that these are same "communications" companies that enjoyed forced monopolies, made trillions of dollars before telcom deregulation. Interestingly, a "deregulation" takes another "regulation" to enforce. Even today, US Telcom companies are dragging their feet while sitting on "exclusive rights" to specific wireless spectrum. If they really want to compete in a true open market, then give up monopolies and compete.

This is where rubber meets the road. The problem with "change providers if you dont like" is, in most places, there are no second or third providers / competition. WHY ? the problem circles back to Govt (whether local or other) giving exclusive rights to select parties. This goes back to the grand debate on no govt vs limited vs all-powerful govt. As much as we like to complain about "Internet", alternative media was propelled primarily because of availability of Internet. We all complain when Google / YouTube removes monetization channels for 2A guys. Now imagine them being put on a dialup connection speed (remember those days ?) while the snowflake videos are streamed at speed ? What if the content / speed filters are tweaked dynamically ? Anti-Firearm channels from YouTube work at normal speed but 2A channels from same YouTube stream at dead slow ? Do we suggest we change providers to a non-existing one ? To further the point, how would we feel if all NRA sticker vehicles are routed to single lane while rest are routed to high-speed 10 lane highway ?

Thanks both. I can only imagine the challenges people in DV situation go through. But I am hoping there are people out there past the initial phases of fear, basic needs met and ready to exercise their right to 2A and avoid another Carol Bowne. I acknowledge that these people may need basic amenities met first, but I will be more than happy to donate money towards self defense training, basic firearms training, application processing, follow up with PDs etc.

Wondering if there is any NJ 2A organization that runs frequent seminars exclusively for Domestic Violence victims ? If its not done yet, what are some of the reasons ? Are DV victims hesitant to reach out to 2A organization or go through ridiculous NJ firearm processes ? Are they worried about owning firearms in general ?

I like see that last option to be "Crazy B..."