MauserCollector

I said I needed a couple multi millionaire investors. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I am sick of the expansion of the police state. When we live in fear evil has already won. Not Enough for what? More kids die in a bathtub. Should we also send the kids to school wearing flak jackets? Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Putting police in the schools is not the answer. You want armed guards carrying concealed that I can live with. I think allowing teachers to be armed is more than enough. We are scared of the boogey man. I asked on another thread how many mass school murders were there in 2016 and 2017? Mass murder defined as 2 or more killed not including perpetrator. There were 2 in 2017. In California A husband killed his wife and a student was killed by a stray bullet. The other in Aztec, NM a former student killed 2. Again the FBI had prior knowledge of his intent and did nothing. In 2016 there were exactly 0 mass school murders. This is right there with the average since the 2004. We average 1.5 mass school murders a year. Yes this year we already had 2 and 19 were killed in those 2. In 2016 and 2017 3 students were killed in mass school murder attempts. The number of children who die in bathtubs per year averages 87. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Huh? Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It sits far enough back from highway. Plus we can plant some arborvitaes Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree I suggest this pose. I imagine that would piss them off good. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That is exactly what they should do. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Glad to see ANJRPC is sticking to lawsuit strategy. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

117 is almost twice as fast as any of mine have been ready. I was promised fast this time. Already I think I'm past 30 days. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Censorship at it's finest. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Isn't the law with Federal NICS 3 days then it can be considered approved? If so then anything within 3 days for NJ would be the same as what the acceptable wait period is federally. Unfortunately I do not believe NJ NICS has a timeframe for when automatic approvals kick in. So there is no incentive for them to get done any faster. I am going by memory so if that info is not correct please correct me. Either way I do think lawsuits should be filed any chance we get. I think drowning the state in lawsuits is the best strategy. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Thank Master Hogg and friends. Best firearms salesman since Obama. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I would however recommend a dog larger than a Shih Tzu. Like Lhaso Apsos they make for a good alert system, but not much else. Shih Tzus also aren't exactly bright or fearless. This one can't tell the difference between a knock at the front door or bathroom door. However she can snatch wasps out of the air. Has killed 4 of them. Growing up I had a big Black Lab and 2 Lhaso Apsos. The female Lhaso Apso was a serial gopher killer. She would go in the hole after them then pile up her kills and sit and watch over them til praise was given. Her record was 4 in one day. She was 3 times the size of the Shih Tzu we have now. Shih Tzu was not my choice. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I still don't think one needs a fighting dog for protection. Labs can do just fine. This guy especially doesn't like Jehovah Witnesses coming around. Just his bark has scared them off. One time they stayed til the door was opened and he was barking and showing teeth. They left quickly and haven't been back since. Otherwise it's almost hard to make him mad. Though I probably wouldn't want to find out what happens if he does get angry. I would say any dog over 50lbs can do some damage real fast, over 100lbs most people wouldn't stand a chance. First picture he is in attack position lol. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

That is a cool looking dog. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I would already be there if it wasn't for the wife. Though I am getting nervous about PA and even Ohio. I am starting to think I may have to go to Tennessee or Indiana. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because the bullet button will be better than the alternative that is coming. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Same goes for C&R Licenses. The NJSP have issued statements that contradict themselves and are contrary to the law. First they sent a letter saying C&R License Holders were exempt from One Gun a Month and need not file an exemption as provided for in the law. Then they issued a proclamation that there is no way to process multiple C&R handgun purchase without the exemption being filled to One Gun a Month. Another one is C&R Licenses are worthless in NJ. Maybe they are worthless within the state of NJ for firearms transferred in NJ or mailed to NJ but what about a NJ C&R License Holder purchasing a C&R Firearm outside of NJ and bringing it back to NJ? If other firearms can be purchased legally outside NJ and brought into NJ why is the same not true for C&R Licenses? For instance someone with duel residency legally purchases a handgun in Florida. They can bring it to NJ without the need to register it no? Lastly there is the issue of Antique Longguns. NJ recognizes Antique Longguns made prior to 1898 as those for which commercial ammo is not readily available. I would say a Krag counts as such a firearm. Certainly a Swedish Vereteli does as does an Antique Mauser. Yet we are told they still have to be transferred through an FFL. Every other state except maybe Hawaii an Antique Longgun is not a firearm. Federally any firearm made prior to 1898 is not a firearm. We can drive into PA and pick up an antique longgun and bring it back to NJ why is it we can't have an Antique Longgun shipped directly to our door? I see nothing in the law that prevents it. It seems it is just another example of NJ firearms owners imposing additional restrictions on our own Second Amendment Rights above and beyond what the State has already done.

I honestly don't want to be a ball buster, but I have tired of people making laws that truly do not exist. We infringe on our own Rights by doing so. Better stated would be NJ law is similar to California, but our 2A groups failed us up until just recently, and the laws were never challenged for clarification. We instead allowed the Attorney General to add to the law rather than filing suit for the courts to issue a ruling on the law. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

You clearly stated it is a no go. So you first. You also stated NJ law is different. Still waiting for you to point out those differences. I provided the links. I also stated an opinion. You were the fact man. Now it seems you have changed to opinion as well. It's ok to say you may not be correct. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

You may want to edit post 15 where you stated "a bullet button is a no go". Also your other posts where you insisted NJ Law was different. Lastly that California Case involved the person not informing the police of the legality of the bullet button, and whether it was properly installed. The state accepted that a bullet is a tool, and if a tool is needed to remove the magazine, then it is not detachable, before the case you are referencing. I will side with precedent elsewhere which while it doesn't have the force of decided case law on NJ it can be looked to for guidance. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

In which way is NJ law any different than California or former Federal regarding detachable magazine and semi auto rifles? Since the difference (which does not exist) was your whole premise I believe your argument fails. Just to clarify the Administrative Code does not show legislative intent, but is one person's (AG) interpretation of the law. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Yes. In which way is NJ law any different than California or federal? Magazine doesn't detach nothing else applies, except for 15 round limit. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

I know thus why I edited my post. It is upcoming. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

When we discussed it the other day that's was the answer I got was if bullet button made magazine not detachable then evil features didn't apply. So it becomes a trade of would you rather have detachable magazines or bayonet lug? Just to clarify I've been talking about new bullet button which does require bullet and lifting of the upper to remove the magazine. So I think that is a little more than $20. Just like removing FN-49 magazine involves holding it together so parts dont go flying everywhere. Which IMO does not make either detachable. Though bullet button 1 should also qualify see California Penal Code 12275 or AWAC which like NJ law and Federal law states has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine. I think the whole argument of ability to accept detachable magazine fails. Unless capacity and ability have different meanings. https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2005/pen/12275-12278.html Federal AWB of 1994 also stated ability to accept which is no different than NJ law. There is nothing unique about NJ law and the argument fails that it is about the magazine and not the rifle. https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk