wooly bugger

Not sure what you mean. These bills are being considered by Sweeney, who has the power to block them. He said he'd make a decision in April, so now's the time to start hitting him. Here's my letter. Feel free to borrow/plagiarize and send to Sweeney plus your own senator. Dear Senator Sweeney, I would like to express my objection to the committee substitute for Assembly bills A3645, A3646, A3666, and A3750, which would require all ammunition sales to occur face to face. This consolidated bill is overly restrictive to legitimate buyers, while providing no impediment to illegal purchases. In fact, online purchases create GREATER accountability than face to face. In addition to an ID, the user must provide a credit card and physical address. If this is not enough, an FPIC could also be required, as many vendors voluntarily do. As a model piece of legislation, here is what Illinois, a very restrictive state, mandates. (430 ILCS 65/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑3) Sec. 3. (b‑5) 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. Eliminating online sales imposes a significant burden. There are thousands of types of ammunition, most of which are not available in physical stores. With a dwindling number of gun stores, driving to one can entail a very long trip, and this can’t even be combined with a trip to the range, because any deviation between home and the range, even to buy ammunition, makes the driver a felon. Let’s be realistic, anyone with the wherewithal to obtain an illegal gun probably obtained a side order of ammunition to go with that gun. And rather than navigate through the four levels of security outlined above, it would be much easier to just make a quick drive over to PA or DE, walk into a gun store, and pay cash, without showing ID. I know that in this environment, it is politically expedient to pass laws imposing arbitrary hardship on gun owners. I would ask that ideally, this bill would be seen for what it is and stopped. If such symbolic legislation must go through, please at least try to minimize the unnecessary burden on lawful citizens. Thank you.

OK, after taking a breather and allowing our senators' fax machines to cool off, I'm back. Sweeney said he'd consider bringing the bills to the senate in April, so now's the time when decisions are being made. I've done two letters and have just completed a third, pasted below. We still have bills with no letters. If you haven't already, please cut and paste and modify my three letters and send them to your local senator. And please pick a bill and write a letter and share it with the group. This is an important push. Sweeney has signaled that he's willing to be somewhat reasonable, so let's give him the ammunition he needs. Dear Senator. Sweeney, I am writing to express my opposition to bills S2497/S2475/A3664, all of which would reduce legal magazine size. The bills that would define any magazine with capacity over 5 rounds as “high capacity” are on the face absurd. I am not aware of any pistol magazine that holds 5 rounds or less, so this effectively a dishonest and most likely unconstitutional ban on all magazines. I am also opposed to the bill that would define 10 rounds as “high capacity.” Again, this is reduced capacity. The large majority of defensive pistols come with a standard capacity greater than 10 rounds. By effectively prohibiting the firepower available in most “commonly used” defensive firearms, this will certainly lead to a constitutional challenge under the “common use” criterion of the Heller decision. Finally, I believe limiting magazine capacity will simply reduce defensive effectiveness of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to reduce a criminal’s fire power. A criminal can walk into a premeditated situation with a satchel full of magazines and multiple weapons. This was indeed the case in many recent mass shootings. The report of the Virginia Tech massacre review panel concluded: “…10 round magazines that were legal would not have made much of a difference in the situation. Even pistols with rapid loaders could have been as deadly in this situation.” On the other hand, a citizen who responsibly stores a defensive firearm in a small bedside safe will likely have a single gun with perhaps one spare magazine. This obviously puts the criminal at an advantage. Estimates of hit rates of highly trained NYC police officers between 1990 and 2000 have shown an effective hit rate ranging from 9% to 25%. Multiplying this by 10 rounds implies that under the proposed bills, one could expect to hit once or twice. Unlike in the movies, a single hit from a bullet usually does not incapacitate an attacker, so it is critically important to have multiple hits. In a recent defensive shooting incident, a mother--protecting herself and her children from a home invader--hit the invader 5 times, and he was still able to flee to his car. It is very likely that, had she run out of ammunition after just one hit, he might have continued his attack and killed or injured the mother and her children. In the battle against violence, I ask you to focus on legislation attacking the root of the problem, not constitutionally dubious legislation that scapegoats law abiding citizens while doing nothing to reduce violence. Sincerely,

Exactly. And they just blew that tactic with naive people still believed it could never happen by themselves saying it can happen. Maybe the people poo pooing the possibility haven't caught up with the bills that their comrades have been proposing.

You don't neeeeed 50 rounds to kill a squirrel!

Or a closed door. I was taught by our second in command that shooting through a door is the best approach. If that doesn't work, I always have my own piss and vomit to rely on.

Homemade wine. Mix of cabernet and alicante. I make about 15 gallons a year and go through it in....less than a year.

Not a well-defined risk and may be no risk at all, but at least a concern of prejudicing a future application should I ever find refuge in a free state.

As much as I'd like to believe this. I doubt the morons who crafted this legislation did it to smooth the way to a flood of CCWs. I suspect the state will drag its feet on this one and then fight it all the way to SCOTUS

Agree with this. I'm willing to take the significant risk involved with being denied but would like to know it has a reasonable chance of working.

I agree it's a lull between the feeding frenzy in the Assembly and whatever is to come in the Senate. I'm taking a deep breath, catching up on all the work I missed doing during the frenzy and getting ready for another blitz in a few weeks.

Same here. My local reps were too arrogant to even acknowledge my letters and were in fact sponsors on a couple of the bills. I'l be sending my thanks in November.

The link to this thread is telling me I don't have permission to access, even though I'm signed in. Is it a broken link? Could a mod fix it?

Definitely call 911.

This was titled "Gun control won't stop the insane or criminals." Sounded promising, but it's basically about how police have no duty to protect. The editorial didn't even address what was promised in the title. If I were a cynic, I'd guess the SLED chose the weakest "pro-gun" editorial it could find to appear "balanced."

For some reason, my wife is phobic of handguns and doesn't want one in the house. Does anyone have any recommendations for courses I could bring her to to give her a gentle introduction?

In business class they give you real butter knives. If you really want to hijack a plane with a knife, go in the bathroom with that and a stone and you have a shank in five minutes. This is a move back to sanity IMO. I wonder if lock backs are ok. If so, I won't have to remove my Spyderco Manbug from my keychain anymore

+1. They are our single biggest ally.

Welcome. I love readington. I hunt a couple of the greenway parks there as well as private land. Deer galore.

I just got a custom knife stolen through UPS. I shipped it to the maker for a new sheath, and he received the envelope with a nice clean cut through it. Stupid of me to ship it in a padded envelope I guess.

Which raises the question of how to distinguish an already owned one from one bought across the state line in that free state of NJ [sarcasm]. In the federal AWB, post-ban magazines had to be stamped "LE Only." Obviously they can't do that at a state level.

Add to the overall cost the cost of litigation. With the 5 year FID reapplication requirement, there will be a de facto ban, as the infrastructure simply can't handle 500k applicants next year and the year after, to be followed by 200k applicants every year thereafter...before accounting for new applicants. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the internet ammo ban may violate the interstate commerce clause. Defending all this isn't going to be cheap.

Here's what I posted elsewhere on the mag limits I think the two strongest arguments are: 1) common use test: a 10 round limit bans most *standard* so by definition firearm configurations 2) a premeditated bad guy can carry a satchel full of magazines and extra guns in a bag. if you've responsibly stored your gun in a bedside safe, your're going to be going to reach over, pull out your (1) gun, and have to face the guy. 3) "highly trained" NYPD have a 6.5% hit rate under pressure. That means that with a 10 round limit, there's a 50% chance you're not going to get even one hit. Quote M

I would like to express my objection to the committee substitute for Assembly bills A3645, A3646, A3666, and A3750, which would require all ammunition sales to occur face to face. This consolidated bill is overly restrictive to legitimate buyers, while providing no impediment to illegal purchases. In fact, online purchases create GREATER accountability than face to face. In addition to an ID, the user must provide a credit card and physical address. If this is not enough, an FPIC could also be required, as many vendors voluntarily do. As a model piece of legislation, here is what Illinois, a very restrictive state, mandates. (430 ILCS 65/3) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑3) Sec. 3. (b‑5) 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. Eliminating online sales imposes a significant burden. There are thousands of types of ammunition, most of which are not available in physical stores. With a dwindling number of gun stores, driving to one can entail a very long trip, and this can’t even be combined with a trip to the range, because any deviation between home and the range, even to buy ammunition, makes the driver a felon. Let’s be realistic, anyone with the wherewithal to obtain an illegal gun probably obtained a side order of ammunition to go with that gun. And rather than navigate through the four levels of security outlined above, it would be much easier to just make a quick drive over to PA or DE, walk into a gun store, and pay cash, without showing ID. I know that in this environment, it is politically expedient to pass laws imposing arbitrary hardship on gun owners. I would ask that ideally, this bill would be seen for what it is and stopped. If such symbolic legislation must go through, please at least try to minimize the unnecessary burden on lawful citizens.

Here are two letter I wrote on my least favorite bills. Not exactly "talking points." What's the urgent need? I am writing to express my opposition to bill A3772, which would require a new design for firearm purchase ID cards (FPIC.) The bill would require that all current holders reapply for the new card within two years of passage and then reapply every five years thereafter. 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 instant background check, 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. Using someone else’s card also doesn’t work, as a matching photo ID must be presented with the card. I am unaware of any case in which a counterfeit card has been used. The current system works perfectly. Police departments across the state are heavily strained in keeping up with just the initial applications and are usually unable to process applications within the statutorily mandated 30 day time frame. Under the current bill, a "renewal" has all the requirements of a full application. With approximately 1 million FPIC holders in the state, the constant reapplications will be a logistical and financial nightmare, both for police departments and individual FPIC holders. This bill is more about burnishing the anti-violence credentials of the sponsors than about improving public safety. This is inadequate reason to burden a million lawful gun owners. If you have any questions or would like to discuss further, please feel free to email me at

See my avatar.