wooly bugger

When are they going to learn to stop f'ing with us like this? How many of them must we publicly shame before they move on to softer targets?

I don't see it as a waste of significant resources, because it's just a matter of driving to the PD and picking it up. It may indeed be to send a message and go on the offensive. Here's one thought: if people are saying that having the entire state of NJ reapply for their FID is no big deal, how about testing it by having just a few thousand of us apply for CCW. It can't hurt to document the fun experience and present it as evidence in the Muller case.

I'll bet most of them don't even realize there's no such thing as a "handgun permit." Since Dick's considers .22 potentially "handgun" ammunition, does this mean someone who owns no handguns will have to get a P2P just for the sake of buying .22? I don't understand the system for dealers to record sales of internet ammo. They don't come through a dealer, so how does this happen? Do we have to ship to a dealer so they can record it before taking possession? As for "fiscal impact," don't they have to do actual estimates, or is it just a matter of the chairman saying "it won't be much" and then passing it along? I'd like to see line items, please.

No it won't. They'll just ignore it.

Dear Senator Weinberg, I was disturbed by the presence of the Newtown shooting parents at the recent Senate hearings on gun control. I found the interference of an out of state group in a discussion of our state's internal legislation inappropriate. Furthermore, I found your attempt to reserve front row seats for them distasteful. I have to suspect that their presence was aimed at emotionally manipulating what should have been a dispassionate discussion on the merits of the proposed legislation. Could you please clarify where the funds for their visit were obtained? I would hope that public funds were not used. Sincerely,

Does anyone know Jeffrey Chiesa's email? I've looked high and low and can't find it. I am following the NJ2AS request to write an email to Loretta Weinburg to clarify how she funded the inappropriate visit to the hearings of the Newtown parents. I'd like to copy the AG to request an inquiry into potential financial abuse.

I'm guessing part of the plan may be to document the experience of requesting the form. Not sure why the time limit

Does this mean that because there is no disagreement in the district courts, there is no way SCOTUS will hear it?

This is the best reasoned post I've read in awhile. I wonder if the recent NJ2AS pullback on public events has to do with similar thinking that we're just hurting ourselves. I've made it my mission to take as many friends as possible shooting. Doesn't matter if they're antis or not. The goal is to get more gun owners and to break down stereotypes. And when it comes to talking to antis, I've made it a goal to start by saying, "we'll never agree on opinion if we dont agree on the facts. So I won't express any of my opinions. Just verifiable facts."

I wouldn't worry. That sort of thing only happens in tyrannical banana republics.

Given that antis are reading this thread, could we clarify for their benefit: yes, technically you can buy a machine gun in PA. There are very narrow exemptions to the federal ban on machine guns. Basically collectors with $20k or so to spend can buy one of the dwindling number of very old machine guns that were in existence before the federal ban in the 30s. I don't have one, I don't want one, and I don't know anyone who can afford one. As far as I know, none of these wealthy collectors have EVER used their antique machine guns in committing a crime. Finally, all those clips you see on TV of machine guns and the claims by Obama and last night by the senior sheriff of Union county that machine guns were used at Newtown or in any other crime are lies. I say lies rather than inaccuracies, because we have corrected them ad nauseum, and they continue to make these claims. These lies undermine their credibility, so I don't know why they persist.

Lspooner: assuming you're gathering opposition information, the answer is the majority. It's a voluntary safety measure they take. Very strict states, such as Illinois require it. They don't ban online sales (like NJ is trying to do) because they realize that such a law would interfere with interstate commerce so would likely be struck down in court. Please note that S2723, by eliminating a visible FID, will make it impossible for retailers to perform this voluntary security check and thus will INCREASE the chance of ammunition falling into the wrong hands. Silly and utterly avoidable by just making a separate FID to allow responsible gun owners to check that they're not associating with or selling to an ineligible individuals. One other example: my hunting club requires each member to have a valid FID card as a surrogate background check. It's a "sensible gun safety measure." Please encourage your side to remedy this unintended consequence. And if the underlying plan is to ban online sales altogether, very smart people in very restrictive states have already realized it won't work. The choice isn't between no online sales and safe online sales. It's between safe online sales and unsafe online sales. Hope you agree with this assessment. If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

This is cynical, but I wonder if they realized that we were doing more harm to ourselves than good with some of the more extreme speakers. Like the guy who got into a shouting match with Norcross. Or the guy baiting the antis waiting in line by asking them which nursing home they came from and letting them know there's a pharmacy around the corner that sells Depends.

Wow, we really are organized. Last night, Cryan was explaining why they have such trouble getting "sensible gun safety measures" passed. He said that we're very well organized and very well funded. He's right on 1 but not 2. Florio called the NRA a "multibillion dollar organization." If only. One interesting thing: Cryan said he got about 2000 emails opposing his legislation and 0 in favor. That's what I call a passion gap.

The bills being released from committee was a foregone conclusion. Where we may have had some good was in specific suggestions on how to improve the bills. That's why the "God given rights" lectures were counterproductive. They truly believe that they aren't infringing on 2A. I think a model of effective testimony was Bob Barush's testimony.

I was there, and it was pretty pathetic. There were 5 of us. I think only one or two were from this forum. The organizer refused to let me put out my informational flyers, stating, "this is our forum, and we don't have to do this." The senior sheriff of Union County made the statement that the AR-15 used in CT was a fully automatic machine gun, spraying bullets. Someone said that you can buy these without an ID at any gun show. There was a display of a Jersey illegal AR, a full automatic (I think it was an MP5) and an SKS, with no mention that 2/3 of those are illegal. Next to the display was a video loop showing...full automatic fire. The sheriff behind the counter, an NRA life member, seemed none too happy to have been pulled into the travesty. The 2nd Amendment presentation focused on the militia clause, stating that the remnant of the militias is found in today's National Guards. No mention of the Heller finding that 2A is a right independent of membership in a militia. No mention of the common use part of the decision. Afterwards, the organizers were pretty upset, because apparently one of us said something "nasty" to the rabbi. I don't know what was said, but it's inexcusable to upbraid a rabbi (whose speech was pretty reasonable) in his own temple. Talk about being our own worst enemies. The only good that came of it was that I was able to speak with Cryan and Stenger afterwards about my proposal for a DIY background check. They at least feigned interest in the idea and took my flyer with the details. I'm going to email MPC today to ask him to hold their feet to the fire and remind them that they stated they thought it was a good idea. There were a couple of people who seemed genuinely educable.

Just tried putting my informational fliers next to all the propaganda. I was told, "this is our forum and we don't have to do this." Oh well. I'll stand by the door and try to hand them out when people start coming en masse. What a contrast from the Morris county forum. Anyone coming, I'm in the green shirt.

I'll be there at 6:30. See you there.

How about putting NRA stickers on anti's cars. Reinforced with superglue. Disclaimer: I'm kidding. Not advocating vandalism.

That's a great argument for the statists. If they want to restrict access, why give the power of granting access to a large, poorly vetted, and corruption prone organization like the DMV. This process should stay in the hands of the police.

Also, hammering home the benefits of of the 2A in resisting tyrannical government is kind of a losing argument with members of such tyrannical government. Use that one on the occasional sheep with some fire in his eyes. It hurts us when you use it to let the government know that we want them to help us oppose them.

I had a long discussion with that priest/professor (if we're talking about the same person.) He had some very erroneous ideas about the current laws and seemed very open to being cordially corrected. We exchanged business cards and agreed to be in touch. He'll also be at the Westfield meeting. It may not seem like it, but there are limits on their political capital as well. It's a tiny chance that some of them actually do care about safety, but if that chance is real, then educating them on how some parts of the bills just replicate or even weaken existing laws might help to get them off of our backs and focus on their real obsession with limiting magazine capacity. I don't want any of this to pass, but if they would just back off on some of this asinine FID stuff, I'd consider it a small victory.

You took the words out of my mouth. The few times people raised real technical issues in a reasoned way, they actually feigned attention. That woman (forgot her name) said to Bob Barusch, "maybe we'll consider that." Yes, a pretty poor victory but more of a victory than the glazed eyes during the 2A rants. I also came with very specific critiques and proposals but didn't even get called to speak.

I'm pretty sure it's hate. They've gone completely unhinged.

I agree that none of this is unintended, but there are senators out there with an incentive to put some vaseline on this bill. One important area I'm focusing is on safety. Emphasize that eliminating a visible identifier makes it impossible to vet someone before hunting with them or privately giving/selling them ammunition. The online argument is a delicate one. Of course, some people want a de facto ban on online sales. But I think the effective message might be that they aren't going to succeed in banning interstate commerce, and, if it's going to exist, they should make it as safe as possible by working with vendors who responsibly require proof of FID. Also, we need to offer suggestions. A couple of times, members of the committee thanked people for offering suggestions. Probably just good acting, but one can dream. My "centerpiece" suggestion is a Coburn-like DIY background check, which would allow me to enter my DL, SSN, and a PIN and print out a verifiable certificate, with my picture on it, good for 3 days. Here's what I wrote last night to Sweeney. I'm going to send a version of it to the other committee members later today, so let me know if any suggestions. Dear Senator Sweeney, I appreciate the willingness of the Law & Public Safety Committee to consider public input on S2723. I'd like to add my thoughts to the discussion. I see two easily fixed flaws in the legislation. First, an unintended consequence of the bill is that it will effectively eliminate private firearm transfers. No FFL will do a transfer for $15. This can be fixed by creating a portal, accessible by individuals, that would allow for running a background check with proper authentication. This would preserve the benefits of the legislation without imposing undue burdens on private sellers. A model of such a portal has been created by Senator Tom Coburn. The second is the elimination of a readily identifiable firearm license, which would actually DECREASE safety. Without this document, it will be impossible to vet an individual before admitting him to a hunting club or lending him a shotgun while hunting. Additionally, it will make it impossible for online ammunition sellers to check the eligibility of a buyer. This is easily remediated by maintaining a separate card, which could still have all of the security features of the proposed driver license endorsement. Thank you for considering my opinions.