Mr.Stu

Here's a thought - the State undermines itself in its arguments. Chapter 131 creates a vastly expanded enumerated list of so-called sensitive locations. The State attempts to justify many of these as locations where particularly vulnerable people assemble. The State fails to explain in what way these people are especially vulnerable. It may be presumed that they are vulnerable because they are less able to defend themselves from violent attack because they are children, mentally infirm, or substance abuse addicts. The State appears to presume that because these categories of people assemble in the defined locations for a specific reason (education, sports events, treatment, etc.) that they are the only people in those locations. This is clearly untrue as children do not educate themselves, referee their own sports matches, nor do the infirm treat their own ailments. There are always responsible, law-abiding adults also present to oversee and run the events at these locations as well as spectate at spots events. Indeed, officials at these events are required to submit to a State background check before engaging in running such events. Even children at playgrounds are required to be supervised by a responsible adult. The State’s blanket ban on firearms prevents these responsible adults from acting in defense of the vulnerable people present. It should also be noted that children, the mentally infirm and substance addicts are categorically prohibited from obtaining permits to carry handguns. Chapter 131 also extends the categories of people associated with law enforcement who are exempt from the prohibition of carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the multitude of sensitive locations. The State argues that these categories of people are at a heightened risk of attack from vengeful criminals. This is unproven, but may be so, but the State saying that they to need to be equipped to defend themselves in the enumerated sensitive locations, is also the State is admitting that regardless of the law prohibiting ordinary people possessing firearms in these locations, there is still a risk that self-defense from a violent attack will be necessary. This is a clear admission that prohibiting firearms from sensitive locations does not eliminate bad actors from committing violent attacks in those places. In contrast, the sensitive locations acknowledged in the Bruen opinion have active measures to ensure the prohibition is observed – metal detectors, armed law enforcement personnel, etc. The vast majority of the new sensitive locations do not have such measures and are a prohibition on paper only. It is very easy to understand how a bad actor ignores the prohibition. Even if an attacker has a particular person as a target, such as one of the newly enumerated exempt people in Chapter 131, it is usual for there to be indiscriminate gunfire from the bad actor. One only needs to look at the number of innocent bystanders injured or killed in the violence perpetrated in our cities to see this is true. Ordinary, law-abiding adults in these sensitive locations have a tangible need for self-defense, no less than the people associated with law enforcement. If the State wishes to persevere with the notion that prohibiting vetted, law-abiding adults from possessing firearms in sensitive locations is effective, they must also admit that it is unnecessary for the newly enumerated associates of law enforcement to be exempt from that prohibition.

During the oral argument for the PI this topic came up. The State's side said in their view a transportation hub is where 2 or more modes of public transport come together. E.g. Penn Station would be a hub because bus and rail are both present. They explicitly stated just a bus stop is not a hub. However, if you rode the bus into Newark Penn Station while carrying, you would be in violation of the law as you entered Penn Station. You would be OK along the route up to that point. It is beyond dumb. They are just trying it on in as many places as possible to make carrying as hard as possible because they are control freaks.

A brake that makes the barrel over 16" that is pinned and welded becomes part of the barrel. That will suffice. Just pinning it is not sufficient.

Bump

I used to have it, but dropped it due to poor reception driving under wet trees. I use my phone now to stream youtube music. Still no ads and the selection is huge. I have a subscription which covers up to 5 accounts so the whole family is covered.

When I was a kid we had 3 cats in the house. The neighbors across the street thought pretty highly of themselves and looked down their noses at most of the village. They installed a dovecote and got 10 doves to live in it. For 10 consecutive days my Mum was horrified to be cleaning up a pile of white feathers from our front doorstep first thing in the morning, hoping the neighbors hadn't seen it. They didn't restock the dovecote.

Just a quick reminder that registration is open for Phillipsburg IDPA this Sunday. Register here: https://practiscore.com/phillipsburg-idpa-may-2023-sunday/register

An in person interview was one of the things added in A4769. They also wanted the references to submit to an in person interview too, but Judge Bumb enjoined that last week. Depending on your town, it may be a formality, or an opportunity to try to deny you. I went through a denial pre-Bruen and had to answer questions in court from the Prosecutor. Be wary of questions like "If someone tried to carjack you, would you shoot them?" The most acceptable answer would be that you would attempt to escape by driving away first. If they press you, state that the use of deadly force is the last resort and so long as you and anyone else in the car can exit safely, you would let them steal your car. If you had a small child strapped in the back seat, that is likely not going to be an option. Deadly force is allowed to protect another from kidnapping. Otherwise listen to the questions carefully and be honest in your answers. Answer only the question asked. Do not elaborate.

The ATF doesn't agree with their own director. He said just taking it off is sufficient. ATF says you have to make it so it cannot be put back on - destroy, dispose, whatever.

Tell her that it is more about the journey than the destination and once it is in your holster, it is safer to leave it there than take it out and unload it for the visit, then handle it again to load it back up for the journey home.

See step 1 above.

Yep. I have a similar, but perhaps more awkward situation with picking my kids up from my ex-wife's house.

You need express consent to enter the private part of private property. The Judge went to some lengths to explain that the curtilage (driveway, front path, porch up to the front door, etc.) are generally open to the public unless posted (e.g. "No trespassers" sign) so you may presume carrying is allowed there. To pass beyond that threshold, you need express consent. Express consent may take pretty much any form - a sign posted, verbal inquiry, notice posted on a web site, etc.

The thing that bothers me most about this litigation is that no-one is challenging the notion that vetted, law-abiding, permit holders are a danger to other members of the public. We are not. We carry for self defense against attacks from lawless, violent people. Some of us are also prepared to defend others from such people. Lawless, violent people are neither inclined or allowed to obtain permits. Yes, there are particularly vulnerable people who sometimes congregate in specific locations, but almost all also venture elsewhere. Why should they be deprived of protecting themselves, or being protected by others that are vetted, law-abiding permit holders just because they are in a group at a given location? NJ says there are dozens of "sensitive locations". If all these places are so sensitive, why does the State not deploy the same level of security as they do for their own legislative chambers and court houses? Clearly most of these places are not really that sensitive. This should be the test for whether a given place is really "sensitive". Is there historical precedent that the State found that it was necessary to deploy security measures to each one? One bug bear for me is the schools prohibition. I drop and pick up my kid at school daily due to the bus run going past their mother's house, not mine. There are cops guarding the school building and controlling entry to the building. There is no security for the grounds, driveway and parking areas. This is similar to the curtilage Judge Bumb called out around residential property. Why are we not allowed to carry during drop-off and pick-up? Even the Federal Gun Free Schools Act exempts carry permit holders.

How much to ship to 08826?

Yes you do. That was not challenged in the law suits.

The brace has a lever on the bottom which you squeeze to adjust the position, right? When you squeeze one end upwards, the other end moves downwards. Just pull it farther down and it will be able to slide right off.

If you're shoving your gun into the holster with any amount of force, you're already doing it wrong.

They were labelled "cop killer bullets". It was recycling the same con that the politicians have been using for decades. Create a scary boogeyman that the lazy, uninformed voter will take on face value. Present yourself as the savior that will slay the boogeyman. Get voted in again. Rinse, repeat. They have done it over and over again and the dumb voters keep buying it. Covid, ebola, Trump, China, the Russians, global warming, ozone layer, acid rain, commies, gun owners, AR-15s, murder hornets, etc. You get the idea.

The difference is there is no Federal law that says you CAN have standard capacity mags and hollowpoints, it is just that there is no law saying you can't. LEOSA specifically says LEO and RPO CAN possess gun, mags and ammo and notwithstanding any State law that says you can't.

Weekend bump

That is mistaken on several levels. You can get qualified for much less than $150. I charge to run people through quals, but nowhere near that much. A regular PCH is not the same as an RPO permit. RPO are much less constrained than us regular folk. They have a less onerous magazine restriction, they can carry in the so-called sensitive places, but they have to requalify every 6 months using HQC1/2 and HNQC. Us regular folk only have to complete whatever simplified CoF the qualifying instructor believes is necessary for him/her to assess the candidate's safe gun handling and we only have to do it once every 2 years, but we're stuck with 10 round mags and NJ hates us.

I didn't say anything about what a non-LEO/non-RPO person should be required to do. Why do you think GFH has been qualifying RPO using this 50 round CoF? On their calendar they state: What Police Officers Need to Bring: • Your own firearm • 100 rounds of factory ammo • Holster • 2 magazines or speed loaders • Eye and ear protection If GFH was using a same simplified CoF that is used for regular PCH to qualify RPO, why would they need to bring 100 rounds, a holster and 2 magazines? Maybe it is because HQC2 and HNQC are 50 rounds each and require drawing from a holster and mandatory reloads within stipulated time constraints.

As someone approved by NJSP to run RPO qualifications, I can say with certainty that is not the course of fire for RPO. HQC1 or HQC2 plus HNQC are the required CoF for RPO.

It isn't at Alito's door yet. It isn't even at the 3rd Circuit, quite. NJ filed a notice to appeal - that's like saying "I'm going to file an appeal". It is not actually an appeal. When they do file it, it will go to the 3rd Circuit. If we're lucky it will go to someone like Judge Hardiman or Judge Bibas. They have a record of supporting 2A in their dissentions in prior cases. If the 3rd upholds the PI, then NJ has the option to make an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. That is when Alito gets to decide on his own, or to consult the rest of SCOTUS. If the 3rd Circuit Judge rules to stay the PI, our side has the option to make the emergency appeal to SCOTUS. When it gets to Alito, he has the same options as if NJ had filed the emergency appeal.