Mr.Stu

If they are rifles, they will have a stock already and a 16" or longer barrel. SBRs are verboten in NJ You probably mean the non-NFA Other Firearms.

They cover criminal prosecutions including the initial investigation by the authorities before charges are filed. Basically, if the police want to talk to you about a weapon related issue (yes, knives are included), you can call USLS and they will provide legal services. They do not cover 3rd party liability which is what the new law demands.

Not if you install a sharp, pointy cone on it.

Organizing a shoot is not the exclusive domain of a special class of board members. Do you have a hunting license? If you do, there is nothing stopping you from nominating a date and location, then inviting folks to join you. If you don't have a thrower, state that and ask for a volunteer to bring one, or more.

Why is anybody still listening to the ATF? They cannot possibly be considered an authority on anything to do with firearms as their only consistency has been to flip-flop on their decision letters. They are a joke and clearly don't actually know anything.

It is the VFG that differentiates a Non-NFA Other Firearm from a pistol. The brace has nothing to do with it. A pistol is designed to be fired in one hand. The VFG makes it plain that the Non-NFA Other Firearm is designed to be fired from both hands.

As has been stated many times through all this kerfuffle, Non-NFA Other Firearms are not effected by this at all. Look at the factoring worksheet here: https://www.atf.gov/file/154866/download Non-NFA Other Firearms must be at least 26 inches overall length. That means they fail at step 2 and are not under consideration with this rule change.

It is not quite as damning as you might think - this is essentially what NJ will be saying when they appeal it to the 3rd Circuit.

It would be fine here except pressing either trigger fires both barrels at once. That means it could be classified as a machine gun as a more than one round is fired for a single action of the trigger. According to Ian McCullum of Forgotten Weapons, the ATF don't have an issue with it, but they have been changing their minds on a whim a lot lately. I wouldn't run the risk with NJ being what it is. I can see a DA drooling over a machinegun prosecution. https://youtu.be/P57iXMmlUZo

Those are rookie numbers - lol You need to get a +1 mag extension.

I always carry 10+1. The law clearly states a maximum magazine capacity. Nothing is said about how many rounds you can have total.

I suspect it will take a few days for any decision to come out. The TRO took from Thursday to Monday and that was fast. If we get something early next week That will be good. I don't think the judges want to get this wrong - SCOTUS is watching.

NY passed the CCIA (Concealed Carry Improvement Act) which was challenged in Federal District Court in a case known as Antonyuk. The District Court issued a TRO to block many parts of the CCIA. NY appealed to the 2nd Circuit to put a stay on the TRO and the 2nd Circuit granted the stay. That effectively put the CCIA back into full effect. The Antonyuk legal team submitted an emergency request to SCOTUS to vacate the stay on the TRO which would have restored the TRO to block parts of the CCIA. SCOTUS today issued an opinion that they don't want to vacate the stay, so the CCIA is still in full effect.

I'm confused about this. The 2nd Circuit only issued a stay on the TRO from the District Court. What can they do on the hurry up until the District Court comes up with a ruling on at least the preliminary injunction? I don't see what the 2nd Circuit has in front of them to hear next.

Siegel vs Platkin was adjourned yesterday until Thursday in light of the Koons TRO and the Range vs DC en banc grant. The parties in Siegel were told to submit simultaneous briefs on the impact of these events on the Siegel TRO and the motion to consolidate Koons into Siegel. The briefs are here: Plaintiffs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.26.0.pdf Defendants: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.njd.506026/gov.uscourts.njd.506026.25.0.pdf Notable is that the Plaintiffs oppose Koons being consolidated into Siegel, but support the reverse, Siegel being consolidated into Koons. That would move Siegel into Bumb's courtroom which may be a very good thing. Replies to the other party's briefs are due by 8pm tomorrow.

I have the same set up - bought it probably 10 years ago. It's a fun plinker, but in hindsight I think I would have preferred the 4". The 6" is quite front heavy and little kids struggle with it.

I think the point is the legislature changed the process without any regard to how the PDs are to actually get any of it done. Simple things like having a stock of blank permits to fill in and issue, for example.

It does not surprise me that the government put the issuing responsibility on the PDs without giving them any blank permits to fill in and issue.

It depends on what the Judge said when they issued your permit. In Hunterdon, the Judge said only the guns you have qualified with, but could just send in the proof of qualification for any other gun to have it added to the permit. Since A4769 was signed into law, there is no involvement by the Judge so new permits cannot be restricted by court order. The letter of the law says "One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit." The Admin code says "Submission of an applicant's most recent handgun qualification scores utilizing the handgun(s) he or she intends to carry as evidenced by test firings administered by a certified firearms instructor of a police academy, a certified firearms instructor of the National Rifle Association, or any other recognized certified firearms instructor;" Therefore, at the time that you apply for your permit you must submit the quals for the gun you intend to carry - your intention at the time of applying. If you haven't applied yet, you would need to submit quals for the P365 as that is the gun you intend to carry. You can't qual with the M17 because it is easier, and then carry the P365 because the M17, from your statement above, is not the gun you intend to carry. Personally, I would qual with both. In consideration of when you have to legally defend your use of force, it would do you no harm to be able to show that you had previously qualified with the gun you used, but I don't see it as required.

I could be wrong, but I believe they have to file an appeal within 10 days. Platkin has already said that they will, but we don't know when, yet.

NJ can, and almost certainly will appeal the TRO in the 3rd Circuit. That may or may not go better than NY in the 2nd Circuit. First, we have Judge Hardiman in the 3rd Circuit and he has been a 2A originalist for a long time. Also, the 3rd Circuit is overseen by Alito whereas the 2nd Circuit is overseen by Sotomayor. That may be significant. It will be interesting to see what Sotomayor says about the stay on the NY TRO.

Don't be so sure. The Siegel case addresses a lot of those places.

I did the weekly shop today. Came away with 40 cans of soup, 20 cans of tuna, and 24 cans of various beans. I need more storage shelf space in my basement.