HBecwithFn7

I absoutely adore my P226. The best shooting of all 3 of my pistols (but the fourth may be on the way). Although, I did try it today, for the first time, with those 147 grain flat head 9mm cartridges (Am Eagle). For whatever reason, they were harder to load in the mag (even with an Uplula), and, for the 1st rack in each full mag, the slide did not seem to close all the way, although it did eventually. Nonetheless, they all fired well, and there were no FTFs/FTEs. I had no trouble with the 147 Flat Heads in the Shield, though. But I absolutely adore my P226!

Which, IIRC, was the place where Mr. Fillipidis had his issues...

Many Thanks, Sgt. I hope that more people use Imagur (which I do) as opposed to Photobucket, which I can't stand , Becuase of the security controlls I have on the browser, Photobucket content doesn't render immediately and needs a lot more "relaxing" of the security restrictions.

But what would that tell them, other than there is a residence at that address (i.e. it isn't a "vacant lot"), unless they actually stopped and tried to talk with someone? Utility bill is OK (as long as it shows the "Service address"... the bill itself could be mailed elsewhere (i.e. to a PO Box)). Property tax bills might be good too, as long as you're the owner (and not renting). If they actually do stop, then anyone in the neighbohood will be altered and want to start getting nosy about why that police car is in the driveway or near the house. And, yes, neighbors *are* that nosy (mine are, anyway )! They're always on the lookout for anything that their other neighbors are into that might just bring down their own property values (as any visit by a police car might indicate "criminal activity") .

I guess, the question becomes, "what discretion does the CLEO have in re: 'investigating' the apps?" I can see where verifying the street address might be something legitemate and, as BLF said, anyone can produce a DL with a different address. But actually visiting the home (or worse, requesting entry) might be a bit problematic for a number of reasons. Primarily, it alerts those "nosy neighbors" that, AFAIC, have no business knowing what I do, privately. I have heard of departments that will interview neighbors (even if not specified as references on sts-066) to verify that the person is who they claim to be and what type of character they are. To me, that's a total invasion of privacy and unacceptable. This isn't an SF-86 for a "top secret" security clearance! Furthermore, making direct contact with an employer and saying, "Mr./Ms. So and so is applying for an FPID etc. etc." is also an invasion of privacy. It's none of the employeer's business and could get the employee fired (if the company mgt. is "anti"). Lucky for me, I own my own IT consulting business, so "problem solved." I'm my own employer. Thankfully, my town did not impose any extra requirements beyond those within state law. They were absolutely great. They did get a copy of the DL, but only *after* they had issued the initial FPID and permits and I was picking them up. They also didn't charge the fees until pick up date (the logic being, in the event of a denial, they didn't want to have to refund). When I went in to get 2 more permits a few months after the initial docs, I did give them another DL copy, as it had been renewed since then (std. 4 year renewal). Other than that, smooth sailing an no additional requirements!

This Friday..... 05/02, and we'd hear about the results the following monday..... just like we *didn't* hear today...

Orders are out - Drake not mentioned in the weekly orders! Looks like either a separate order or they're re-listing again for another week!

In that case, yes, overall, SC does not seem to honor permits from "non-residents" of other states. I do see that they honor some other state's "resident" permits (FL and AZ being among them - UT *not* so...). But to obtain an SC permit as a non-resident, one must own some property.

It may have some bearing in NJ in that it is part of the "splt" in the circuits ( "Drake" 3rd NJ vs, "Peruta" 9th CA) and, thus, what might facilitate SCOTUS granting cert. We can only hope.

SC, technically, *will* accept non-resident CCW apps. The problem is, you must own some kind of property in SC to get one. It doesn't have to be your "primary domicile," but you have to own some property, and have the tax assessor of the county in which it's located fill out the form on this website and send it in. Click on the "Non Resident CWP form" link.

When I last checked with AZ on 04/15, I was told they were just getting to applications received on 02/19. I sent mine in on 03/19, so I guess a month later they'll get to it. I'm probably not going to see any of them until I return home from my latest Florida trip. Ah well. There's always next time.

Can't say I have, but I've done some business with them.Of the big Interent retailers, I'd prefer Cabela's for ammo. Did they charge your CC immediately? That's something for which I have zero tolerance... charging the CC immediately upon order entry, only to have one or more items "backordred" for months. And I especially dislike it when they won't say how many are "in stock" or not at order entry time. "Diving" Internet sites are notoriously like that. I either make them delete the backordered items, or I will cancel the order... for a full refund of the deleted items or the order itself.

He's spot on about "bad guy/good guy with a gun." And I wouldn't want him to leave the NRA as his heart/mindset is in the right place. But, perhaps a different "brand ambassador/rep."

There's another consideration, I believe... perhaps a bit painful for gun rights advocates and many loyal NRA members to face. But it must be faced and overcome, because the anti's are taking rampant advantage of it. I believe they feel the NRA is the "front face" organization for all gun owners and speaks for all of them... or at least, that's their (anti's) perception. It seems the NRA often gets the most MSM exposure, as opposed to other gun rights advocacy groups (example, I don't ever recall seeing the 2AF on MSM). That makes it a very easy target for the anti's to pick and hit. And the problem is further exacerbated by having people without as much media savvy as the antis respresent the NRA and it's brand on MSM. I think the anti's love the NRA because the people that come forth to represent it and the brand play right into how they want to spin the gun control issue to the sheeples...portraying gun owners and gun rights advocates as an idiotic, buffoonish, bunch of "Fudds" etc. etc. etc ... something to be feared and controlled. We, the 2A community as a whole (and the NRA in particular), need to get a lot smarter about our media presence and "brand representation." We need to stop giving the MSM (and thus the anti's) anything that they can spin in their direction and make us look idiotic, buffoonish, etc.). We need to have some of those same slick "you know whats" the antis have, representing us. The anti's can't very well spin it against us if we're looking exactly like them. Otherwise, they look bad, reflexively. When I look at pictures/video of us at political rallies in front of the "govt. house" (whichever govt.), the first thing I see is a lot of people in cammo, open carrying, and bearing sinage saying "<insert official's name> is a(n) <insert derogatory reference>." Yes, I know it's a matter of pride to be able to open carry and to exercise our right to free speech. But at what cost? 99% of the time, the anti's will see those same images as a threat, and spin it to the sheeples, accordingly. That's their mindset. We need to stop giving them the opportunity to do that. Is the ability to open carry at those rallies worth the risk of them spinning it the wrong way to the sheeples? Is showing up in cammo or hunter's gear worth it? Is it worth bringing posters/sinage that mocks the intended target (govt. official or law)? Or, maybe, is it worth it to take a little extra time and organize one's thoughts, and prepare some rational, thoughtful and effective remarks when speaking before a group of legislators and/or reporters? Is it worth it to consider dressing as they do? (well, maybe not "full business dress" but at least a "professional" appearance.. dress slacks, polo shirt and/or the female equivalent for the ladies). Is it worth re-considering whether or not to swallow our pride a little, and not open carry in places where the MSM can take those images and twist them to facilitate their own agenda? I know... I know.... I said this would be painful.... but It's all part of the "risk/benefit" calculations we need to do when advancing our message and our brand. We want the MSM to take us seriously. We need to start acting like it. Likewise, so does the NRA. Use some of that wealth for hiring some of those high priced media consultants and brand experts and give them a "makeover." The more they look, feel, act like the anti's do, the less ability for the anti's to make them look bad on the MSM. Pick spokespersons that can match the anti's toe for toe and score points with our message. Everytime an anti says "If it saves one life..." I want to hear, "What if it *costs* a life.." (as it did, for example, in a shopping mall parking lot in Short Hills). The more we "fight fire with fire," and better our media approach, the better our chances at getting the "right" kind of media attention paid to us, and much better, the chance of actually reaching the sheeples... the very people we need to reach in this struggle. <puts on flame retardant suit> OK, have at me.

Is NICS denying the "purchase," or the "delivery?" I could purchase a hand gun, have it transfered to my FFL, but I might not be able to take "delivery" on it until OGAM expires (whenever it does). I guess the problem is that, for many/most of us, we are "purchasing" from the same source (FFL) as we accept delivery, so it looks like NICS is denying a "purchase." But, I also agree that it's a silly law, and there only to impose more "control" over things that shouldn't be controlled, and don't help in the true fight against violent crime.

I would agree. A homeowner in a "single family" property (on their own land) I believe can own a Jerry can of gas for their lawn mower, etc.. We had one in our house when I was growing up. That said, they would be definitely illegal in a "multiple-unit" dwelling (i.e. row townhouse, apatment, condominium, etc. etc.).... I own such a townhouse, and we are definitely prohibited from owning any large can/tank, etc. of flammable substance (i.e. bottled natural or propane gas), jerry can of liquid fuel, etc. Maybe a plumber's torch is OK, or a small container of a "petrolium distilate," but nothing like a jerry can of gas. Thus, we would not be permitted to own a propane based grill, unless it was attached to the main natural gas line to the unit.

Well, either way, the local PD still has to inquire with the NJSP SBI unit. Either they send the form, or they use the eelctronic receipt number you provide them from going on line to fill out the electronic form. What might be facilitated is the "record keeping." That is, with the electronic form, as long as you give your local PD the correct receipt number, there is less a chance I think of there being a "clerical error" that might delay processing. I'm not sure if the "results" come back the same way it was sent in or not (ie. "electronic results" if sent in electronically, or "hard copy" results if sent in hard copy), or if it is all electronic results or whatever. I would hope "electronic results" in all cases, again, to avoid clerical errors. I guess the "time" taken involves whatever the NJSP has to do to "produce" the results, in either form.

Very Simply, there once was (and for some depts. still is) a hard copy form to fill out for the "background check" that is done on each subsequent P2P request, instead of the full "MorphoTrak" fingerprint thing. It cost $18.00, instead of MorphoTrak's $57.00 + change. The above is a new "electronic" version of that old hard copy form. It cost $20.00 instead of $18.00. It has no effect on the costs of FIDs or P2Ps, which are still $5.00 and $2.00 each, respectively. Some departments (like mine) have implemented this new "electronic SB212a" form... some have not yet.

For what it's worth, I took the "Multi-State" CCW course from these guys. They were very good. They are offering it again on May 17 (Saturday). Multi-State CCW Class

Watch for the next post from Drez (Recessed Filter) in "Events & Meetups." I (and hopefully my nephew again) will see you all in June when I return from Fl.

Unless they issue a "miscelaneous order" in the mean time. That's quite possible. And given the hightened "awareness" due to the Boston Marathon, I can see that as a reason to delay this order from publication until after it's over. Or, it could be for any number of reasons.... But it doesn't necessarily mean they didn't take it up or haven't reached a ruling.... they just haven't published it yet.

I'm thinking that as well. A "Miscelaneous" order.

That's not the Drake case of interest. The case we want to know about is: 13-827 Drake Vs. Jejerrian....

I would have thought most LE scanners are all "digital" now... not much to pick up on analog/voice channels.

I trust that Sasha and Roxy are getting along well... Congrats!