Cereza

I didn't watch it, but I read the online piece: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/popular-remington-700-rifle-linked-to-potentially-deadly-defects/ There would appear to be a defect with the Remington 700 rifle which is the focus, though count on 60 minutes to get their dig in at 2A: And regulators couldn’t do anything because their hands are tied: the government is allowed to recall toy guns, but not real ones. Robert Chaffin: In the world of firearms there is no such thing as a consumer product agency that can force any firearms makers to recall the gun. Does not exist. Lesley Stahl: ‘Cause of the Second Amendment, correct? Robert Chaffin: Well, the right to bear arms, yes. Any recall has to be voluntary. Remington already issued a recall on the triggers so I don't see much of a point to the report.

They've updated the official page since last night: http://attorneygeneral.delaware.gov/criminal/concealedweapons.shtml For non-Delaware residents who wish to carry a concealed weapon in Delaware, pursuant to Delaware Code Title 11 Section 1441, the Attorney General has the responsibility to enforce the following: “The State of Delaware shall give full faith and credit and shall otherwise honor and give full force and effect to all licenses/permits issued to the citizens of other states where those issuing states also give full faith and credit and otherwise honor the licenses issued by the State of Delaware pursuant to this section and where those licenses/permits are issued by authority pursuant to state law and which afford a reasonably similar degree of protection as is provided by licensure in Delaware and publish a list of reciprocal states annually on January 15.” For the period January 15, 2017 to January 14, 2018, Delaware will recognize the concealed deadly weapon licenses or permits issued by states listed below: {list of states can be seen at official website} The list of states with reciprocal privileges is published on January 15 each year. Any additional reciprocal states would be posted on January 15 and be effective immediately. The removal of reciprocal privileges from any state would be posted by January 15 to take effect one year later. The Department of Justice is currently reviewing a number of other states’ CCDW approval procedures to ensure that they meet the requirements of Delaware Code for those states’ permits to be recognized in Delaware. To the extent that any states are deemed to no longer meet the requirements of Delaware law, that will be noted on January 15, 2018 and the change in reciprocal recognition (if there is any) will occur on January 15, 2019. [The Department apologizes for misleading language with respect to this process that was posted from Feb. 10-15, 2017.] Persons who have a concealed deadly weapons license or permit issued by one of the states listed above will be able to lawfully possess a concealed deadly weapon while visiting or traveling through Delaware. However, such persons will be subject to and are responsible for knowing and obeying all of Delaware's laws and regulations that apply to the carrying and possession of concealed or openly-carried deadly weapons. It appears that DE is taking the same stance as PA, telling residents they need to spend their licensing money at home. The big difference is that they did not screw all the out-of-state license holders in the process.

Prognosis Details This bill has a 1% chance of being enacted. Factors considered: The overall text of the bill decreases its chances of being enacted. The bill's primary sponsor is a Republican. The bill is assigned to the House Judiciary committee. The bill's primary subject is Crime and law enforcement. (Factors are based on correlations which may not indicate causation.) Predictions are by PredictGov. I'll wager that the same language in the bill that would really help us here in NJ, is responsible for the dismal chances of it passing. They might want to drop the provision about non-resident permits granting resident-state reciprocity to get it passed. It won't help us in the short term, but it will pave the way for a successful legal challenge.

No, though maybe I should switch. Current "career" (rotflmao) pays bupkis. (On the flip side, limited hours—more range time!— and no office dress code.) Linking to the horse's mouth as it were is more a personal preference than anything else. I'd rather be shown something, than told something. I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but those tweets at the top… ^^^This.^^^ I cannot go into details because it's very personal and not my story to share on a public forum, but someone I know recently said something that produced the thought, "his guns should be locked up, if not taken away, until he's better." That thought was immediately followed by, "Wow, if he lived in NJ, it would be illegal for family and friends to lock away/ take away his guns." Politicans love writing one-size-fits-all laws for self-aggrandizement, not taking so much as a moment to consider that those laws may actually be counterproductive to the stated goal of keeping people safe.

Here it is in all its glory: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/19/2016-30407/implementation-of-the-nics-improvement-amendments-act-of-2007 It's long, so you might want to skip to this section: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2016-30407/p-33 That and the paragraph after may answer some of your questions.

1. Never, ever rely solely on the summary. Remember NJ's Question 2? 2. The text of the bill (bless them, it's short and simple, so unlike NJ statues) is what was introduced on 1/3/2017. It was referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations on 1/12/2017. They probably have the changes in front of them, but the public is unlikely to see the new text until it hits a milestone. You don't have to like him, but please acknowledge that his taking the time to go there in person probably accomplished more than 100 calls or 1000 emails would have for New Jersey gun owners. You can tweet in under 10 seconds; you can cut & paste an email in 30 seconds; you can read a scripted response for voicemail in under a minute; but the time, tolls and tank of gas to show up in DC in person? That shows commitment and effort and it politicians take notice.

There's a visual for the ages…

Warning, it has a TON of commercials. I can only listen to that on an interface that allows FF'ing. I am a fan of Perino & Stirewalt :https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/perino-stirewalt-fox-news/id1080412254?mt=2

^^^This.^^^ (emphasis mine) The last thing states that offer Constitutional Carry or otherwise sensible licensing want is for the Federal Government to involve itself further in firearms regulation.

I'd say stop by and ask. I did it with my last batch and it worked out well. The clerk pulled my and hubby's from the STACK (yes, the size warrants ALL CAPS) waiting for the chief's signature and got them completed the same day.

(emphasis added) Looking back over prior years' 2A battles, SB has been involved. It's not his fault that our (NJ) legislature is stacked with pearl-clutching gun control advocates.

I can't decide if the word choice was intentional or not. Technically, all fifty states issue CC, but those of us who live here in NJ know what that means. Per Congressman Richard Hudson, I think the bill is now (it wasn't earlier, it may change yet again) worded to allow NJ residents to carry on a non-resident license, but NJ politicians "not liking" the 2nd Amendment expect them to draft legislation placing a multitude of restrictions because as the Congressman said (go to 0:44), "[We] have to follow the laws of that state." NJ will never ban CC outright—that would lead to a Heller challenge they would lose—but count on the predominantly Democratic legislature to make it as difficult an humanly possible.

Welcome! (I got to see your lovely town yesterday—an hours long tour thanks to the traffic nightmare created when they shut down Rt. 34)

It pains me to say this, but unless you have free time galore, paying the fine is the better choice. The municipality is counting on it, that's why the ticket is just expensive enough. If the fine was $150 traffic court would be packed, and weeks behind because everyone would be in there contesting their fines. However, for most people $64 is less than a day's pay, so they swallow the aggravation and injustice and just pay it. It's not right, but it's the broken system we have. Warning: if you decide to fight the ticket in court and the meter maid/cop doesn't show up, the court will not automatically find in your favor. They will likely reschedule the hearing at least once, possibly twice, so you could be looking at three days of work lost in total.

They'll get over it.

The FBI turned him over to local police who in turn checked him into a local hospital for a "welfare check." CNN reports his gun was taken away (source: cnn.com/ 2017/01/07/ us/fort-lauderdale-airport-shooting-main/index.html ), but he wasn't adjudicated mentally incompetent which would have prohibited him from owning a gun. (FWIW, had he been adjudicated mentally incompetent I don't know if the law would have allowed police to confiscate his weapons or require that he surrender them.) I don't think they dropped the ball, I think Santiago slipped through the cracks.

How did you not know about UpLuLas until 2017?

Wrong instagram. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/esteban-santiago-identified-gunman-fort-lauderdale-shooting-article-1.2937904

You might also like: How to make a Social Justice Warrior: On identitarianism, intersectionality, mobbing, racefail, and failfans by Will Shetterly. Free for Kindle at the moment.

Not for a range they're not. I don't know who the distributor is for gun ranges, but they all charge like the FMJs are made of gold. It's the thing I dislike most about renting firearms—you have to buy the ammo there. That probably was the "cheaper" ammo…

Here's the tracker for H.R. 38: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38 It has to make it past the House before I get excited. The last time the bill was introduced it died in committee. eta: ("past" not "pass"--typing fail)

There's a difference between "voting what you're told" and "voting your own interests." Paying the mortgage and putting food on the table is a priority for a lot of people, not just union workers. But no one is obligated to vote the way their union urges them to anyway, and members should tell reps when they're unhappy with what the executive board is doing. The job of the union is to protect workers, not play footsie with a particular party.

You "indict ham sandwiches" all day, then go home. I'd rather do petit than grand.

Here's what I don't get—why is everyone blaming Laxalt? Laxalt's AG; he enforces the law, he doesn't write it. He certainly doesn't have the power to dictate to a federal agency what they will or will not do. Those MDA-backed fools wrote a law based on their feelings. They have only themselves to blame. The Nevada Legislature enacted a law that says that the FBI has to run checks, and the FBI essentially informed NV, in writing, "Our power supersedes yours." CASE CLOSED. Think of the time and $20 million they could have saved had they bothered to learn the basics of how our government works. Then again, thank heavens they didn't.

Merry Christmas to all!