Pythagoras

Thanks for posting this list. Have been explaining to people by word of mouth, but it's great to have it in writing. Definitely will borrow and use for the cause.

Does anyone here own a Ruger SP101 .22? Like BlueLineFish, I'm also in the market for a .22 revolver and the Smith and Wesson 63/617/317 are all so expensive...so I came across this Ruger article: http://www.thetrutha...01-22-revolver/ His main complaints were small grip size and heavy trigger pull. I held one at a PA gun show and the grip is a bit small, but liveable. However, it had a trigger lock (and I know not to dryfire a rimfire weapon) so I couldn't feel the trigger pull myself. What do you guys think, is the trigger pull as bad as the reviewer says? (I'm looking at this to introduce a 60 year old, wrist-problem woman to firearms and eventually use it as a "trail gun" myself)

PM sent, tj462nj

Of course they are! We just need someone fluent in legal-ese to explain it to them.

With all due respect to this little girl, she is in fourth grade. Why do the democrats think her political opinion carries any weight? (Oh yeah, it supports their agenda...)

Glad to have you aboard!

You're right, this is how the anti-gun side uses the word "compromise." We have to highlight this point, and remind the media what compromise actually means - that we get something in return. Fooling myself? I prefer to think that I'm still slightly optimistic. I think discussing what we want in return for passage of some bills that might actually help (mental health checks could help if done properly) will be more effective than shouting "COLD DEAD HANDS!" I don't think the time for "Cold Dead Hands" has come quite yet.

Yes, it is. I say scrap the FID/P2P applications, and just put the mental health stuff in NICS instead. Way faster, way less messy, way cheaper. I don't know what the definition is. I say we use whatever definition is currently used during the "Mental Health Records Search" currently performed with FPID/P2P. If it needs to be changed, let's find out more and talk about. You're 100% correct about the roadblocks, everyone on this forum has been through them. The anti's idea of "compromise" is just to strip rights and I do not support that. However, I think we would all benefit if the mental health check was removed from FID/P2P and incorporated into NICS instead. The mental check would take less time and shorten the wait time in NJ. (At the federal level, the pro-gun side could accept this to take other anti-gun items off the table.)

TooBigToFit, could you send it to me in a PM?

Tremors for the win! I freaking love Burt...

Pics or it didn't happen! (someone had to)

Hey, good to have you here

If you haven't already, check out http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/47917-10-million-gun-owner-march-in-maymark-it-be-there/ There's a big gun owners march on Washington, D.C. on May 25. Info here: http://www.gunmarch.com/ I'm planning on going, but it's a long trip to go alone. I would love to take a train/bus with other NJ gun owners, especially members of NJGF. Does NJ2AS want to take a lead in organizing this?

I will be there. I also vote for organizing transportation, whether it be bus or train. Does the NJ2AS want to organize this?

You speak the truth, sir.

I don't want to make any concessions, but at some point we may have to look at damage control. Here's why: I don't think these Dems are going to let Newtown go to waste. They're going to try to capitalize on it as much as possible to pass as many laws as possible to curry favor with their anti-gun base. In the past, the Dems have cried "compromise" and just taken rights away as a one-way street, but I don't think *all* compromises are concessions if we get something in return. For instance, I'd be willing to have NICS incorporate a mental health record search in addition to its current criminal record search. It shouldn't affect us law-abiding citizens too much (only make the NICS check take 2 seconds longer), and it might actually do some good (remember, the VA Tech shooter passed a NICS check because of inter-agency failure to communicate). In return, they could remove the "justifiable need to carry" clause, or revamp the transportation laws so we aren't forced to live in a network of exemptions. How would you feel about that?

I don't understand...the AG can just change statutes willy-nilly?

Sorry for the bump, but as of now they're "Out of Stock, No Backorder." Website says they expect to be restocked on 2/14/13, so that's six days from now. My personal review: I ordered 4 magazines and they are all identical to the factory mags that ship with the firearm, right down to the markings and baseplate. They have a "friction mark" where the finish is marred along one of the edges (will upload photo later), but they fit inside the mag well perfectly and feed rounds into the action 100% identically to the originals. I would buy these again, and I highly recommend them to anybody who can get their hands on them once they get back in stock.

Let's hope so. It seems to be in his best interest for a 2016 oval office run, allowing him to stay on the fence. He can veto the current laws to appeal to the Republican base, and he can tell the Democrats "We already had really tough gun laws, so I signed the mental health bills." (Though I fear he'll probably sign one or two of the gun new bills, just to be safe.)

Tried telling my girlfriend the truth about this...she wouldn't believe me, even after citing the Supreme Court case law. Maybe I should actually show her the decision in print. Totally stealing this!

Oh jeez, me neither. The limit to 15 is bad enough, 10 is worse but at least stomach-able......5 is unacceptable. I've seen discussion about a 5 round limit possibly applying to revolvers because of the phrase "ammunition feeding device," but it's my understanding that previous magazine limits only apply to semiautos. My question is, can the legislators somehow construe a double action revolver as a semiautomatic just because it's "one trigger pull, one shot" and the hammer auto cocks?

I agree, scrap both of 'em....I just don't see any purpose AT ALL for the pistol permits besides being a means to enforce OGAM. I'm only 22 so I don't know the history firsthand...Anyone here know the supposed reasoning for pistol permits in the first place? "Wanna buy a handgun? We'll take our sweet time approving you and then give you a 90 day window to buy one. After that, you automatically lose our trust again"

"Overwhelming public support," huh? How about the overwhelming public opposition, as evidenced by the all-about buying spree and inability to keep shelves full? The anti's have their heads shoved further up into deeper and darker places than usual....

It seems to me that we'll be lucky just to keep the laws we already have....repealing laws doesn't seem very likely in the current climate, unless it's part of a "compromise" in exchange for a new law. Frankly, I'd rather focus on removing justifiable need to carry than removing OGAM. Unless of course removing OGAM also removes the Permit to Purchase a Handgun requirement as well (I always felt the pistol permits were just there to enforce OGAM). I HATE needing to ask permission 2 months in advance just to buy a handgun.

Sad he won't be there, would have been good to hear him support us