wooly bugger

When I called his office, they said he wasn't going because "It's not his Trenton day."

One more idea, and I can even find out where to go for this. We know Cryan makes $49,000 as an assemblyman. What does he make as undersheriff?

OK, Maybe I can get numbers by town? It would be helpful to know how many FID holders exist in each district.

Don't get mad. Get even. Expose that liar. That's what I'm doing in the comments section. I'll be curious if he has the balls to "approve" them.

And my email to the "corrections" department. Dear editors, I'd like to submit a complaint regarding this article posted by John Celock. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/new-jersey-guns_n_2678713.html Having attended the meeting he reported, I can say that his reporting is inaccurate and borders on libelous. It is not worthy of a nationally respected online publication. Please see my comments beneath the article for specific objections.

Here's my response to the hatchet job on the hearings. If you want to comment, let the author know! John Celock [email protected] If you want to see what he really said, watch this John, don't invent quotes to suit your agenda. Or if you're going to do it, do it to both sides, not just to the side you don't like. This article is unworthy of the Huffington Post. It's just bad journalism. You owe Mr. McBeth--and your editor--an apology.

I said asset, not ally. Anyone with ambitions beyond the state needs to be pretty muted in their anti-gun actions. By NJ standards, "muted" is pretty good.

That's exactly right. I want names which might be useful in future campaigns. I just don't know which agency to approach.

Here's a great interview where he explains that there's been only one shooting in Newark by a legal gun buyer. A great fact to bring up in the debate. He's a smart and ambitious man. He has national aspirations, and he's not going to destroy them by coming out for gun control. Whether he's sincere or not, he won't drop the act if he becomes senator, which can only be good for us. The whopper from Bill Mayer, "but Corey, even the liberal party in this country is not for taking away guns."

Agree. One more reason not to talk to him. It just lets him go back to his superiors and brag what a good job he's doing to "reach out." Instead of trying to work with him, maybe we need to bring out the stick and let it be known that we're going after him and Cryan with every financial resource we've got.

They're not trying to "sneak it past the voters." They're trying to 1) fully capitalize on the emotions from Sandy Hook. The longer they wait, the greater the risk of legislators coming to their senses. 2) To do it while they will still be portrayed as heros, protecting the children. If it happens a year from now, it will get much less attention. On a less cynical note, I think they truly believe that their constituents "want more gun control." What they don't understand is that when they say "more gun control," it goes without saying that it's "more *effective* gun control." At the SAFE hearing, no one, even the liberals, liked these bills. That's what these guys need to hear. They may get 15 minutes in the sun, until we start educating the public on how ineffectual these bill are, and then people will get pissed at them for not having done anything real.

Don't talk to him in private, where any idiocy will go unseen by anyone but you. Talk to him in public, where he can make a fool of himself.

My PD said the same thing. He actually thinks it won't pass, because the NJSP will school Christie on the complete unworkability of it. Only concern is that they'll water it down. Right now, it's not a renewal. It's a full reapplication. They might just make it that you have to pay a fee, like at the DMV. And then the fee will go up. And up. And up.

I stand by what I've posted elsewhere. Don't become his coaching team. I suspect he's using up to practice his anti-gun debate skills. The more private debate, the better he's going to be able to counter when it matters. Like I said, I want him and Cryan in a televised round table with Scott and Frank. He and Cryan are serious intellectual lightweights. They'll be curled into a fetal position by the end of that discussion.

I don't think it's silly at all, especially in NJ. If they make it extremely hard to buy ammo (like requiring background checks like they now do in NY,) we can always reload, because the antis don't even know it exists (until someone at the hearing taught them about it. Doh.) .22 is the one thing you can't reload, so makes sense to stock up. Also makes sense, because no one wants to burn through the stuff that might get banned until they know the truth.

If manufacturers have nothing, that's good on two fronts. 1) It casts doubt on the theory that NICS is slowed down on purpose. Panic buying continues! 2) Why is panic buying a good thing? Though lots of it is be existing gun owners, a lot are also new owners. More owners = more power.

I suspect it will be like the SAFE hearings. The only people truly motivated to go will be people like us, and the councilwoman will be in for an unpleasant surprise. Here's a good link embedded in that link. I'm going to send it to my local assemblymen. http://bridgewater.patch.com/blog_posts/purchasing-a-firearm-in-nj

Interesting, when I saw the title, I thought the gist would be: "see, we're not trying to take away all your guns. We're letting you keep 2200." Instead, it was, "what? they're letting them keep some guns, even though variants of them are capable of killing people?" That woman is seriously out of touch.

Where does it say "firearms?" It says arms. I agree with you on the second statement about unlimited protection to any kind of firearm." Rather than the common use clause, I would have preferred an interpretation that, since it refers to a militia, anything that an infantryman carries should be allowed. Thus, full auto yes. Nukes no.

I disagree. There were plenty of credible jurists who argued (incredibly) that it's a "collective right," whatever that means. The "common use" clause is ignored by liberals, but if taken literally, invalidates every AWB already. My biggest disappointment was that it specifically stated that the ruling doesn't cover CCW.

I'll take Obamacare and more in exchange for a solid SC ruling that protects our rights. Obamacare will be "repealed and replaced" as soon as the public, having passed it, "finds out what's in it." A SC guarantee is much harder to overturn. I don't think the SC is amused by the "try and try again" strategy.

I've never seen that happen. Here's an excellent example of responsible, accurate journalism. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/new-jersey-guns_n_2678713.html#postComment

I'm slow today. I don't know the answer, although I was thinking about it before. I've sometimes thought it's a bit of an imposition, because no matter how much my friends may know and likely, there is a finite risk that I will do something stupid. That could put them at risk, couldn't it? How about a bill that specifically insulates someone from liability, provided they answered "to the best of their knowledge?"

For NJ, just take the "8" from Florida and turn it on its side.

Thinking back to the person who mentioned having it in a more formal setting, what about requesting a "round table discussion" (not a debate,) between him and Cryan and two carefully selected people from our side. Scott and Frank seem the logical choices. If we can ever get him, in a televised format, to say "these won't make us safer," that will be a huge win. I'm sure that in a properly moderted forum, they can do that. My fear about too many of us meeting him privately is that it's essentially coaching him on how to react in public. Let him learn...on TV...at the hands of masters.