wooly bugger

Has anyone ever asked Cryan point blank if he is permitted to carry? If he says yes, then ask if he will abide by new magazine limits. If no, then no further questions, if he refuses to answer, then: "Thank you. I think you've answered my question."

I love the Gorge. I especially appreciate the lack of bucket brigade. The TCA status attracts mainly catch and release anglers, who tend to be a bit easier to fish with. It's also nice that there's a private club downstream, so I'm sure we benefit from spillover from their stocking. I have noticed over the past few year that the bottom has gotten more sandy, which worries me.

Here's a good self-defense article. I'm sure nj.com is just writing it up now, so I'll keep hitting refresh on my browser until it hits the home page. http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-penn-intruder-dead-attacking-elderly-woman-club-004819256.html

It's going to get worse when the "background check" requirement kicks in. Then, you'll be dependent on the goodwill of a dealer willing to do a NICS check for $10.

I didn't know that. Thank you for the correction, as it would be embarrassing to present such a factual error to Florio. I'll take out the "cut and paste" part.

Last one for now.... "Regarding the requirement for FTF purchases of ammunition.....Modern technology allows for secure authentification of identity without a face to face meeting. This is the reason why we are able to transfer tens of thousands of dollars without physically presenting ourselves to a bank teller. Currently, most online retailers of ammunition require an FID card, a photo ID, and a credit card, all with addresses matching the shipping address. Thus, online purchases are, in fact, far less "anonymous" than FTF purchases. Can you conceive of a scenario where an ineligible individual would forge an FID card and document his illegal purchase through an online purchase rather than just drive 1 hour to PA and purchase ammunition with cash and no ID?" Note: In the Assembly committee hearing, Cryan brought up the fact that the CO shooter had 6000 rounds of ammunition, purchased over the internet. If he brings this up again, point out that, if online purchases were illegal, he could just as easily have purchased as much as he wanted at the same place where he purchased his gun.

For Florio and Cryan: "Firearms falling under your definition of 'assault weapon' account for less that 2% of overall firearm violence in this country, with fewer homicides committed by these firearms than by hammers. Why have you chosen to focus your efforts on a category responsible for such a vanishingly small share of violence, rather than on more serious threats to public safety, such as illegal hammers?"

For Weinberg or Cryan: "Local police departments are currently overwhelmed by the workload of issuing initial FIDs and P2Ps. NJ law mandates issuance within 30 days, yet 6-9 month delays are common. Under your proposed bills, there will be approximately 500,000 reapplications next year, another 500,000 the year after, and 200,000 every year thereafter....in addition to the current workload imposed on PDs. How much do you estimate this workload will cost? Under this burden, how long do you anticipate it will take for someone to replace an FID invalidated under your law? Given the nearly zero rate of firearm violence by existing FID holders, how much do you believe this effort will reduce firearm violence?

For Weinberg or Cryan: "Newark mayor Corey Booker recently stated that, looking over many years of gun violence statistics in Newark, he was able to identify only one crime committed by an FID holder. Another source states that there has never been an incident of gun violence by an FID holder in Jersey City [need reference.] Given the near perfect track record of the current licensing system in denying legal gun purchases to potentially violent individuals, what benefit do you foresee to for a system that would spend tens of millions of dollars a year by forcing legal gun owners to reapply for a "high tech" FID every 5 years?

Question for the "2A scholar." (assuming he's going to give a leftist interpretation....") "Thank you for your insightful analysis of the second amendment. We continue to welcome academic debate on the subject. That being said, at the policy level, the debate on two points of contention were decisively closed with the Supreme Court ruling on the 2008 Heller case. 1) The second amendment protects an individual right, and 2) It protects the ownership and possession of "arms in common use at the time." Given the fact that the AR-15 is the most popular and fastest growing segment of the firearms market, how do you interpret the current NJ ban on this category, in light of the Heller decision?" I would pose the same question to Florio, except that I would replace the introduction above with "given your expertise as an attorney, you are aware that the debate...."

Question for Florio: "The NJ AWB was one of the centerpieces of your time as governor. It is a cut and paste of the federal AWB in effect from 1994 to 2004. It banned certain firearms based on safety and ergonomic features, such as adjustable length stocks and devices to prevent burn injuries to firearm users. Following expiration of the federal law, a study commissioned by the Department of Justice determined that, unsurprisingly, it had no discernible effect on firearm violence. Based on the results of this study, what is your opinion on efforts to double down on this approach by imposing stricter bans on firearm safety features?"

Question for Cryan: Bill A3799 is a cut and paste of Governor Cuomo's SAFE Act. It would ban, amongst other things, a safety device that prevents a marksman from burning his hand on a barrel (barrel shroud), and the attachment of a plastic handle to allow a more secure grip on an otherwise legal firearm. Could you explain how banning either of these safety devices would enhance gun safety? As a followup, given the remarkable similarity between your bill and Governor Cuomo's bill, it seems you must have studied it carefully. What do you consider its greatest weakness?

I think that would be a good addition to the flyer I suggested. Could you post links to the data?

OK, here are mine regarding mental health: "Assemblyman Cryan and Senator Weinberg have introduced 20 and 9 bills, respectively, targeting gun ownership. Between the two of them, they have introduced none to improve resources for identification and treatment of dangerously mentally ill patients. Given that almost all of the recent mass shootings were committed by individuals with mental disorders, given the recommendations of the SAFE committee, and given the almost universal opinion of physicians that the current mental health infrastructure is dangerously inadequate, why have you completely neglected this important an non-controversial opportunity for violence prevention?"

This is really disappointing. It seems like Weinberg and her friends in the assembly are pulling every dirty trick to thwart Sweeney. Here's what I just wrote Sweeney: Dear Senator Sweeney, I am concerned that we are just one business day away from the Senate hearings, and we haven't seen the text of your bill. It is crucial for an intelligent discussion to know what we are discussing. I understand you're under severe pressure from some of your colleagues to add unnecessarily restrictive measures aimed at demonizing lawful gun owners. I ask that you maintain the reasoned balance you have shown so far. For anti-gun voters, this is just one of many issues. For those of us who are passionate about our second amendment civil rights, this is the fight of our lives, and we will remember those who temper the worst excesses of our adversaries. Sincerely,

I thought it was 5 years, unless they changed it from the assembly bill.

Why did you change your mind? I think it would be great to have a page on violent crime statistics, both in NJ and nationwide. It would undermine the panic they're trying to stir about an "epidemic of violence." Another good fact would be the findings of the National Institute of Justice Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons ban, which stated: "In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect." Here's the report: http://publicintelli...pons-ban-study/ Correction: That quote isn't from the study, it's from a discussion with the author on the findings of the study. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

This is the good chance to hold some really bad guys' feet to the fire. I've been thinking of high impact questions to ask and am wondering about the wisdom of discussing them here, in a semi-open forum. I don't think Cryan has spies registered on this site, but who knows. Any opinions? If I get a "no" from NJ2AS-LLC, that will override any other opinions. In any case, I'll print out my questions and distribute them at our 6:30 pre-meeting meeting.

Thanks for the heads up and good point. I'll check my local ordinances and immediately take any excess to a GSBPA shoot to stay under the limit. On a side note, last week I shot my M1, Mosin M44, and Lyman Hawkins. The BP have me the best groups.

There are lots of bills sponsored by people like MPC and Albano. Problem is, in a Democrat dominated assembly, they never even make it to committee. What we need is an initiative and referendum process, like other states do, so we can force these to be considered. Then we could turn the tables on them and flood them with pro-2a bills. One of Christie's campaign promises was to introduce such a process. Went nowhere.

What the hell happened to just 12 bills getting through?

Where do you work? Hell?

I hope the longer the drags out, the closer to election, and if Buono continues to be a complete failure, the more confident Christie becomes in the safety (to him) of a veto

I don't get it. These bills have already passed the Assembly. I thought the next step is consideration by Senate, followed by consideration by Christie. Why does the Assembly have any more say in this matter?

Here is what I came up with for a summary of the current bills. Please review and comment: especially on the "proposed improvements." I'm thinking antis might be more amenable to revising the bills than to rejecting them altogether. Once I get suggestions, I'll submit to NJ2AS for their final comment and approval. Currently proposed legislation: Comments and Proposals for Improvement Bills A3645, A3646, A3666, A3750, and S2476 These bills would collectively ban mail order of ammunition and require all transactions to occur face to face from a licensed firearm dealer Comments: · There are thousands of types of ammunition, of which local stores can carry only a few. For example, match ammunition is not sold in most stores, so competitors must purchase remotely. · Stores that sell ammunition are dwindling, so many firearm enthusiasts must travel a significant distance in order to purchase ammunition. · Someone wishing to purchase ammunition illegally can cross into any of our bordering states and pay cash. · In the modern information era, the technology for secure remote identity verification exists, as evidenced by the fact that it is possible to safely transfer tens of thousands of dollars without any face to face interaction · By interfering with interstate commerce, this legislation poses significant Constitutional issues Proposal for improvement: · Illinois law can be used as a model for legislation effectively barring ineligible individuals from obtaining ammunition, without punishing law abiding gun owners or tying up the court system in years of Constitutional challenges · Illinois law: Any resident may purchase ammunition from a person outside of Illinois. Any resident purchasing ammunition outside the State of Illinois must provide the seller with a copy of his or her valid Firearm Owner's Identification Card and either his or her Illinois driver's license or Illinois State Identification Card prior to the shipment of the ammunition. The ammunition may be shipped only to an address on either of those 2 documents. Bill A3772 This bill mandates creation of a new Firearm Purchaser ID (FPID). All current holders would be required to reapply for their cards within two years of passage and then every 5 years thereafter. Comments: · The current FPID is a low technology document, which could conceivably be forged. · Under the current law, the card is valid unless a holder becomes ineligible, in which case it must be surrendered. Even if it is illegally kept, the card number is flagged, so that if it is used in an attempted purchase, the card will not match a valid card at the time of the point of sale background checks, and the purchaser will be arrested. · For the same reason, a counterfeit card is useless, since the name and number will not match a valid card in the database. · Even if these mechanisms fail, each buyer must submit to two instant background checks at the point of sale, which effectively blocks illegal purchases. · Under the current system, police departments are overwhelmed with applications, which often take 6-9 months. If every FPID holder in the state were to reapply, the system would likely collapse. Maintaining the system would likely cost tens of millions of dollars a year. Suggestions for Improvement of the bill: · Require the design of a modernized FPID · Include funding provisions, so the significant workload of re-licensing every gun owner in the state can be absorbed by police departments · Rather than requiring constant reapplications, which would place significant burden on both gun owners and tax payers, include in the design of the card a magnetic strip to prevent counterfeiting and to allow for instant deactivation if a card holder becomes ineligible