HBecwithFn7

You also have Rt. 23, and both 15 & 23 lead to I-84 and the routes through NY State (which lead to/from Canada). Perhaps US-209 in PA also contributes.

So did you "throw the book at 'em or what?" :D Similar issue as I maintain a mailing address (PO Box) in a different county. In this particular county, the "questionaire" = "summons." I assume it was sent automatically to "the PO box" itself, as both DL and voter reg would reflect my physical county. But I could always check "not a county resident." They stopped after a while. I guess they figured it out and took me off the list.

A lot depends on the number and kind of cases on the docket and how many prospective jurors they need. In the 22+ years I've lived where I do, I've been summoned twice. The first time, I didn't make it past voire/dire (i.e. the entire panel got picked before they got to me), and I wasn't called to report again that session. The 2nd time was precisely 4 years ago, this month, and I was impaneled (you can read about the case in this thread). In Sussex County, I can imagine you not being summoned for quite some time. Here in Warren County, we are probably a bit more active as we have a bigger stretch of I-80 as well as I-78 and, thus, more potential for "highway drug deal/stops/busts."

They'll exempt themselves before the law passes. This is all very simple... it's all about people "in control" wanting to stay "in control" and not permitting anyone else to "gain control" from them...

Will that help? I understand that, according to the proposed law, both "possession and use" will be illegal. I can see it now.... "Confiscate...Confiscate...Confiscate!"

I bought the Mossberg 930 SemiAuto 12G "Home Security" model (18" open barrel, 4+1) and "pimped" it up to an "almost" JMPro. (6+1,. 28" barrel with modified choke, JMPro style charge handle, bracket, etc. etc.)... It doesn't have the beveled edges or internals of a JM Pro, but it works well.

Perhaps not, but they can make the individual attempt to exercise it extremely difficult... to the point of "why bother... easier to move away..." I think, perhaps, they (NJ) are counting on that mindset.

Both still post here occasionally. Maksim, of course, is the forum's owner.... But very busy... Still, he might show up here or in the chat room.

Just curious... Did you also intend for the "I'm a cop" answers to be "mutually exclusive" from the other three? Because more than one answer could apply to any individual (e.g. One could answer "I'm a cop - Yes or No", as well as "Yes, No, or already gone")...

Good luck getting LEOSA honored everywhere in NJ for retirees.... I know many LEO retirees that have elected to move away than fight that battle.

Same faulty logic as mag limits. I have no problem with "use of body armour as an aggravating factor" in the commissiion a crime. But use for "HD/SD" (if one should choose that - might be a bit "tin foilish" ) should not be illegal... And what about use of body armour for civilians "protected" by LE (WPP candidates, potential witnesses, etc. etc.)??? Or used by "private security" to protect their clients...

And the ironic thing is, it can also work for the other side, as well (i.e. "reverse nullification"). That is, a jury can "convict" a person, even when there is sufficient "reasonable doubt," etc. etc. And I think a lot of prosecutors count on it. I know the one at my last juror experience did. He did not succeed.

Yes, within the next 5-10 years. Much depends on being able to re-establish my business in my destination, as well as what's going on with family, etc. etc.

I would gather the atty would either accept that as "Yes, I support the 2A," or ask a clarifying question (i.e. "does that include the 2nd amendment")..

Welcome from Warren County, NJ!

I have no bumper stickers on my car at all... initially, because I just didn't want bumper stickers cluttering up my car. But it also seems to be helpful for issues like this! The problem being, I could (plausibly & truthfully) answer those questions any which way I wanted to, to achieve the desired outcome for me. But it's harder to do that for a question like "Do/Did you ever own any firearms..." or "Do you support/oppose the RKBA, per the 2A...". I suspect a lot of candidates might not want to answer such a direct question in open court. The judge will allow "sidebars" if the jury candidate wants to answer privately. See this thread for a prior discussion. And I suspect both sides would be willing to dump juror candidates based on those answers, more easily than the other questions. Certainly, the defense will want pro-2A people, and the prosecution not. I truly hope that the defense can challenge more candidates than can the prosecution.

Excellent video! Let's just hope it can get seen by the people who need to see it!

Those voire/dire questions are going to be awfully interesting... I don't know if either side will get away with asking prospective jurors *directly* of their 2A position (i.e. do you own firearms.... or are you pro-2A or not...)... I would think many would not want to answer those questions in open court. They'll have to come up with other "non direct" questions that might give them some indications as to which way the candidate is leaning.

But it *might* have an effect on the law-abiding citizen who might do what she did. It might put the fear on to just "not carry" at all. I think that's what they're attempting here... control of the law-abiding citizen.

The more MSM exposure/spin Evan can pony up, the better for her, and the better for us. We just have to make sure the MSM doesn't quash it or "re-spin" it towards the anti side.

I don't think the prosecutor is attempting to "deter" criminals. He knows he can't. I think they're attempting to "deter" law abiding citizens just like this young lady.

I think not offering PTI, etc., is "over the top." If the prosecutor is going to all these lengths to set an example and to "deter," why not go "all the way?..."

I agree. I think it's more the "sweeping" issue. Those ports are rather close together. And they could not guarantee the required "trigger discipline." I have to give props to HG Easton. They helped me out by *not* over-reacting, the last time they had an incident. I was not yet an "owner" at that time, and I had just purchased a 1 year membership. I was strictly renting from them. The rumor was that they might implement a "no rentals unless you're already an owner" policy.. the logic being that people intent on "ending it" but don't own anything with which to do it, would more likely be the ones to "rent," and then do it at the range. To HG's credit, they "kept calm and carried on." Now, I'm an owner, so no longer an issue for me.

The only thing I might suggest, simply for "convenience" sake, is to cover the box, container, etc. in something that disguises the package, so that no one will see you are carrying a "MOSSBERG" whatever (or any firearm) and raise eyebrows. Not that they have any legal right to, but you know it will happen...

Not if the jury is "sequestered." You'd have to catch them right at "voire/dire." And, given that the prosecution is attempting to "deter," I think they might just go for sequestration in this case. Bring on the "combi vans with blackened windows, etc."