Mr.Stu

SCOTUS denied cert on the Maryland case, Woollard vs. Gallagher. The NJ case, Drake vs. Filko, was granted the delay Gura asked for and we're still waiting for cert on that one.

I did indeed get it for Chrstmas. I haven't had a chance to use it alot yet but it is showing a half dozen throws from my Lee powder disc measure to be within .05gn of each other - I'm using Accurate #5 powder which is pretty fine grained and normally throws very consistently. So far I recommend it. Stu.

I have been researching this recently and have found many good reviews of this jeweler's scale http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004C3I2GK/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=C9AQR3JDCZWU&coliid=I277QVO3818BNF I'm hoping it might be my Christmas present so I'll come back later and let you know how it works out.

Reminded me of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol6poJ6M7MA

The appellate court decision refers to NJSA 2C:39-3(f)(1) which encompasses the control of “hollow nose or dum-dum” bullets. The court then goes on to refer to precedent which allows reference to Webster’s for a definition of dum-dum bullets which the court decides dum-dum is“defined as a bullet (as one with a hollow point) that expands more than usual upon hitting an object." This seems to say bullets that expand like hollowpoints as well as bullets that have a hollow nose. Although it is not explicitly stated this would include non-hollow nose bullets such as the EFMJ or Bulldog bullets which are designed to expand upon impact because they are dum-dum bullets. The text of the decision can be found here: http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120330329 2C:39-3. Prohibited weapons and devices ... f. Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets. (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6, who knowingly has in his possession any hollow nose or dum-dum bullet, or ... Either way, for HD you're good to go with any of them because of the exemption found in 2C:39-3(g)(2) (2) a. Nothing in subsection f. (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land, nor shall subsection f. (1) be construed to prevent any licensed retail or wholesale firearms dealer from possessing such ammunition at its licensed premises, provided that the seller of any such ammunition shall maintain a record of the name, age and place of residence of any purchaser who is not a licensed dealer, together with the date of sale and quantity of ammunition sold.

It sounds to me like one vehicle will fit the bill perfectly - Toyota Sienna AWD.

Video does not play. It says Private in top right corner - do you need open up permissions?

I use these too - #4-6 x 7/8" are perfect. They don't extract on a semi too well and they won't feed from the mag for tap-rack-bang drills but for a revolver they can't be beaten. The nylon that they're made from tends to bounce back to shape so they can be hit many more times than the harder plastic snap caps.

Simple - the premise that possession of any firearm is illegal and then (very poorly) carving out exemptions which the gun owner has to prove that they fit into rather than a presumption of innocence.

Is there any rule that requires them to explain why they refuse to hear a case?

My wife has already brought that one in

Just sent this to both my Assembly representatives: This bill provides nothing which will impact the illegal use of firearms. The only people who will be effected are law abiding gun owners. There is already a hugely draconian scheme in place which carries out the same checks repeatedly in the process to legally obtain a firearm and this bill makes it worse. This bill contains numerous unworkable requirements such as relying on secret lists to determine if a person is a prohibited person. Such a person has no way of knowing they are on such a list nor any recourse for being removed from the list. Also, the bill calls for two different schemes, one of which is to be chosen by an appointed official. I thought the elected officials of the Assembly and Senate wrote our laws, not some unelected person. Last, but not least, it has been stated in Assembly committee that the cost of enacting this bill "cannot be determined". It astonishes me that the Budget committee could pass a bill without knowing what it will cost. What is the Budget committee for if it not to manage costs? It would appear that it is a Democrat controlled committee which is willing to pass nonsense bills just because party leadership instructed them to. The members of the Law and Public Safety committee were 3 forths of the way to denying this bill's passage when Assemblyman Mainer cancelled the vote in progress. Again, please oppose this bill.

Hi all - new here but agree with pretty much everything on the board. I have just sent this in email to all 12 members of the budget committee and I encourage everybody to also send a note. Dear Assembly member, I am writing to appeal to your sense of logic and judgment and to cast aside partisan pressure. On Monday Assembly bill A4182 will be before you. This is the bill that would have been rejected in the General Assembly Law and Public Safety committee on June 6th if the chairman had followed the committee rules and allowed the in-progress vote to be completed. I am unable to understand how this bill did not pass a vote in that committee but has been passed to your committee anyway. In that committee hearing the question of the expected cost of this bill was queried and no cost estimate could be determined. As a member of the Assembly Budget Committee I expect you to examine the proposed bill with a view to ensuring the State’s funds are not spent uncontrollably. If this bill passes your committee you are effectively handing over blank check. This would not be in the best interests of the State especially given the current financial situation. Passing this bill would be a particularly irresponsible action considering that none of the elements of the bill would prevent the unlawful use of a firearm. The existing system is one of the most restrictive in the country already. Further restriction is wholly unnecessary. Please remember, it is already illegal to commit an assault on a person. It is irrelevant whether a firearm is employed in the assault nor is it relevant whether that firearm was purchased legally or not. Further restriction on law abiding people obtaining firearms will have no effect on people who are willing to disregard the law. Please vote no to this bill.

My wife just told me that she had forgotten to tell me that I got the call to pick up my 2 PtP late last week. Standard paperwork was submitted to the duty officer in Mountainside PD on 4/16. No need to make an appointment or any extra forms. References got their letters 4/22 and were returned by 4/30. Assuming the call came on Friday, that's 24 calendar days. It's only 10 days from when the second reference letter was returned. Getting this done on time is definitely possible. I feel sorry for you folks who are suffering with the willful refusal to comply with the law in other towns.