HBecwithFn7

I thought it was "Statutory." Can this be vetted?

True, but we get a lot closer....

I certainly agree it is far less "influential" than it used to be. Yes, it does. But, for example, the "Booker" election was a lot closer in Bergen than I thought it might be. With the right amount of campaigning to the right constituency, it just might be flippable, at some point. Money, I can understand. It *is* "followable." But not individual votes. I think some of those folks did vote their true conscience. It's not mine either... not "technically." I was born elsewhere, but raised there since the age of 5. And I returned after graduating college and working for a few years after that. But I hold no loyalties either. And, I will leave, eventually. How quickly depends on how nastier the laws get.

Precisely. When it's my time, I will re-establish primary domicile in my destination state, and renounce same in NJ (i.e. cancel voter registration, etc. etc.). I have to speak with my business lawyers about whether or not I need to transfer my business entity or not, but I will do that if I need to. Update the passport, file tax returns in the new state, re-do insurance, "advanced directives," "wills," etc.... All that good stuff. I'm debating on whether or not to file FPID change of address. I won't need the FPID any more, as I would not intend to do any firearms activities, there, after I leave.

I wonder if that was Drake speaking directly, or the Star Ledger speaking "on his behalf." Notice it was not called by its proper name ("Firearms Purchaser Identification Card"). I'm thinking Mr. Drake would not make such a mistake. Therefore, I don't completely trust this article...

Well, it explains it a little. Hackensack (for those that don't know - the largest city and the county seat), Englewood (2nd largest city and where I grew up). Two smaller versions of Newark, Paterson and Camden, etc. but large enough to make the difference in re: the county. There are also several other forces at play in Bergen. Loretta Weinberg, herself, is from Teaneck (located right in between Hackensack and Englewood), and is very representitive of a lot of the population in lower Bergen. Now, go a little north (north of Paramus), and I agree with you. Witness Saddle River, Upper Saddle River, Ramsey, Mahwah, Woodcliffe Lake, Montavle, etc., a whole lot more ($$$) and a lot more conservative. Richard Nixon himself lived in Saddle River after leaving the WH, and in Park Ridge, just before his death.

I think they do mind if criminals have them. They just know (like we do) that there's nothing they can do to stop them (criminals) from getting them. But they can stop law abiding citizens from getting them... and, perhaps, using them to defend against the "tyrannical govt," which they represent.

The biggest problem, I think, is the vice-grip the national MSM has over the GUM (I call them the "sheeples") . If we were able to finance our own MSM TV channel (not Cable, not streaming video, not Internet - we're already there.... but the GUM aren't...), and reach the GUM/sheeples, things might improve a bit. There's no way the MSM is going to let any pro-2A or pro-gun content get broadcast over their airwaves. Same thing with Hollyweird. Except for a few actors that we know are pro-gun, most of them are very anti (or pro-govt). And the one's that hold the casting and financial power over all of the industry are anti. So, even if the pro-gun people wanted to make a movie, or even a PSA, they'd get never get the financing they need, and they might get blacklisted from future acting jobs. I think our best bet, presently, is to try and work with Fox to get some pro-gun, pro-2A content on board. Lot's of luck with the "big 3" networks. Then again, even if we were to get some traction with Fox, how long would it take for the FCC to interfere???

I believe it's more "discretion of the investigating authority" (i.e., CLEO or designees). The law may require us to provide the info on the sts-033, but the investigating authority has the discretion in how it's vetted/verified. What's really weird to me is why the info. is listed on the end docs themselves (i.e. FID & P2P)... What difference would that make to an FFL or the archive keepers (i.e. the "every day" people who need to view the docs)? If it ever comes to that, I'd just quit and find a new job, rather than go through the expense (and aggravation) of suing them. If I were to sue, they'd end up terminating me, anyway... same end result...

I think "Hickock45" is one of the better YouTubers out there (if not the best). I learn a lot from his content.

And, based on your logic above, I think the natl. media *would* pick up this story and spin it exactly the way you did above. Remember, "Guns are BAAAAAADDD!"

One of the frustrations I have, as a voter, is actually being in a strongly pro-gun district with pro-gun reps (24th). If I go vote, it won't make much difference in my district, as my reps will almost always win. Yet, still, I vote, to help ensure that. Likewise, in very strong anti-gun districts, their victories are almost always guaranteed (Ms. Weinberg, for example), because there simply aren't enough pro-gun folks living there to get them voted out of office. Perhaps. if we could focus on some very close districts that might be "flippable," we could make a very strong statement that just might get the "Sweeney/Weinbergs" of our state to pay attention. Do we know which districts are "in play" at this point?

I would not have a problem with people knowing that don't control/influence my ability to "make a living" (employers/clients) or my day-to-day existence (neighbors). If I choose to list any of them as my references, that's one thing. But, if I don't, they should not find out what I'm doing from the PD. Privacy...

As with any retail shop, the advice given often reflects what the shop needs to sell at that point... and/or, perhaps, the level of training offered new employees.

Probably your company (I assume "Target") engaging in standard "legal liability" protections by not disclosing any information about you without your consent, lest they say something for which you could sue them. When I was in the corporate world, requiring such consent was SOP, for a number of things, especially with Human Resources. If other companies would call me for a reference about a former employee, I would not be allowed to talk to them directly. I'd have to refer them to Human Resources who would, in turn, give only very limited information (i.e. dates of hire/termination, job title, and (perhaps), if we'd hire them again). But no other info, no salary/compensation info, etc. etc. To be honest, though, I have a serious issue with "verifying employment" as being part of this process. I don't understand why one's employment status is any indicator of whether or not a person is worthy of owning firearms and why employment must be verified in this way. Psychiatric History? Yes. Criminal History? Of course. But employment? AFAIC, it's none of the employer's business whether or not I own firearms, as long as I don't "bring them to work" for any reason, or unless I specifically list the employer as one of my references. Increasingly, employers are feeling free to regulate their employee's conduct "off the job," and I can see where an "anti-gun" employer might be keen to fire the employee if they discover s/he is or is attempting to be a gun owner.

Precisely this. The National MSM doesn't want you to see those stories, unless they can spin them in a way that facilitates their anti-gun agenda (i.e. the defender screwed something up but survived anyway...)

Precisely.

Fair enough. I'd think both houses still need to pass one of the bills (as a parliamentary formality), but having both identical certainly makes it easier/faster.

One other step after this, before CC's desk, perhaps. Either house would have to pass the other's Bill (Assm. would have to pass S993, or Sen. would have to pass A2006), or they go to a conference committee to draft a unified bill which both houses could pass. *Then* it goes to CC's desk.

Just curious... Are the Paramus and Long Branch stores "self-contained" (i.e. not with direct access to/from the "indoor mall" areas and other customers)? I was thinking, perhaps, that SA wouldn't sell guns/ammo at all in stores that are not self-contained. For example, the Dick's in Rockaway is self-contained, and, although in the general area of Rockaway Town Square Mall, is not part of the Mall itself. There are several stores on the same land parcel (and sharing the same parking lot), but they are all self-contained and not accessible to each other. The Rockaway SA is wholly contained inside the Mall and only accessible from inside the Mall. I don't understand how that might make anyone any "safer," but that might be their thinking.

To my knowledge, they never sold guns/ammo in the Rockaway Mall Store. I didn't even know they sold them at all.

Just to confirm... this is only for "long guns/rifles," correct? It would not apply to "shotguns," as the max tube capacity of a semi-auto shot gun is 6+1.

That's what it says on-line for me. But both the human phone rep, and the computer telephony voice said "Issued, printed and mailed." That could be, simply, to shut me up , but we'll see.

Yes, I am. I called this morning to see if it had not yet been sent (so I could pick it up in person), but the phone rep (and the telephony voice) told me that it had already been mailed. I won't get it until I get back home and get my mail delivery resumed. Which will be the case for both UT and AZ anyway, so.... Wait 'till October, I guess.....

Update: I am pleased to report my Florida status is now "Issued, printed and mailed," as of yesterday. Submitted 03/18, Received 03/20, check processed 04/01. No word yet on Utah or Arizona. Can't get a status from either by phone (and they don't have one on-line that I know of). AZ money order not yet cashed.