http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/11/daniel-zimmerman/saf-sues-california-over-assault-weapons-ban/

 

Nice!!

Good for him. Go get 'em!

Maybe they can do New Jersey next....

I keep seeing the Second Amendment Foundation in news trying to make progress. I don't see the NRA doing much of anything besides patting itself on the back. Am I right or wrong?

I keep seeing the Second Amendment Foundation in news trying to make progress. I don't see the NRA doing much of anything besides patting itself on the back. Am I right or wrong?

The NRA has the numbers in membership and the political imfluence. I assume we would see more anti-gun stuff coming through Congress if not for them.

On the other hand, the SAF is like the home run hitter on your team.

I keep seeing the Second Amendment Foundation in news trying to make progress. I don't see the NRA doing much of anything besides patting itself on the back. Am I right or wrong?

 

The average age of SAF members is like 40 something. The average age of NRA members is like this guy

Godspeed to them. I certainly hope they can change something over there.

I am eager to hear CA's excuse for how a law that got an innocent man falsely arrested twice is common sense, reasonable regulation. I am sure it involves protecting the children and somehow, defeating terrorists.

I keep seeing the Second Amendment Foundation in news trying to make progress. I don't see the NRA doing much of anything besides patting itself on the back. Am I right or wrong?

 

SAF uses the courts (faster, but if something goes wrong, it can do more damage) to address change... NRA tries to use politics (slower, but safer). Both together work to secure our gun rights.

The best outcome for this would be a win for SAF in the 9th Circuit. Then there would be a split in the circuits, which almost always leads to SCOTUS hearing a case. If this happens, we can thank the NRA for F#*$ing up the Heller II case and losing.

The NRA is a lobbying group . Tons of cash and contacts. SAF is a litigation group.

Both in court and threatening lawsuits. I think they are a perfect compliment to each other. That being said I did donate to SAF this year while I did not renew my NRA membership.

So you know which group I think better represents gun owners in the people's republic.

I've joined and donated to both and the one thing they certainly have in common is that they bombard you with solicitations and superflous sh*t. The SAF sent me an usolicited DVD and then asked me to either pay for it or send it back. Not cool.

I've joined and donated to both and the one thing they certainly have in common is that they bombard you with solicitations and superflous sh*t. The SAF sent me an usolicited DVD and then asked me to either pay for it or send it back. Not cool.

 

I got the same from the NRA. Legally you're allowed to keep it and not pay. After getting a second letter saying "You haven't contacted us with payment or returned it" I didn't feel like dealing with their crap if they decided to harass me to pay so I returned it. Then a week later I got a third letter saying "just in case you didn't know, since we sent it to you unprovoked, you can keep it if you'd like."

 

I'm also in the same boat with not renewing my NRA membership (at least not yet), mostly because I despise their "discount" of $2 off any membership. Not to mention they do nothing for us in NJ. I instead joined NJ2AS this year. Maybe I'll join SAF too since they do seem to be more active at the federal level.

I'm not sure if this same argument would play out in NJ. First, our AWB laws are very strait forward. Gun is either on the list, or has features making it illegal... I can understand a wrongful prosecution suit, and i have no idea how Cali has its AWB laws written. I do agree, if the prosecution cant determine whether someone is breaking a law or not, something needs to change.

 

Not knowing a law is different then knowing it and not understanding it.

I'm not sure if this same argument would play out in NJ. First, our AWB laws are very strait forward. Gun is either on the list, or has features making it illegal... I can understand a wrongful prosecution suit, and i have no idea how Cali has its AWB laws written. I do agree, if the prosecution cant determine whether someone is breaking a law or not, something needs to change.

 

Not knowing a law is different then knowing it and not understanding it.

I'm not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion, our laws are as clear as mud. CA has a list of guns that are legal and those that are not, and a fairly clear list of evil feature combinations that make a gun a no no. The only thing that is clear in NJ is that anything mentioned by name on the AWB list is illegal, anything else is debatable. The evil features list is not even law, it's one AG's opinion on what "substantially identical" means.

I'm not sure how you managed to come to that conclusion, our laws are as clear as mud. CA has a list of guns that are legal and those that are not, and a fairly clear list of evil feature combinations that make a gun a no no. The only thing that is clear in NJ is that anything mentioned by name on the AWB list is illegal, anything else is debatable. The evil features list is not even law, it's one AG's opinion on what "substantially identical" means.

The AG guide line is to clear up any debate about what substantially identical means in the statute. I think its pretty clear in NJ what constitutes a AW. I think it's a load of crap at the same time. The only thing i find unclear is what happens when a new AG steps in. Her guide line is as good as law, they cleared out the IO rifles in the swift of a pen stroke.. But what happens when she's gone? If you know the law, and understand how the AG has defined a vague discrepancy, then there's no confusion about what the state will and will not allow. if you decide to come to your own conclusion about what "substantially identical" means, then you risk the state not agreeing with your terms. The thing is, if you know the AWB statute, then you should know the AG guideline. The problem is that no one knows either.

 

I get the idea behind having it ALL in the statute, but NJ would easily argue they have a guideline for the vague discrepancy, and i guarantee all it would accomplish is adding the current guideline into the current statute. Are they fighting to get rid of the statute? or clarify these vague discrepancy's? I don't see how adding to it will help, because if the guideline were to disappear, one could argue a semi-auto is not substantially identical to a assault weapon in any terms. One could make any argument really, but you would have to prove it in court.

The AG guide line is to clear up any debate about what substantially identical means in the statute. I think its pretty clear in NJ what constitutes a AW. I think it's a load of crap at the same time. The only thing i find unclear is what happens when a new AG steps in. Her guide line is as good as law, they cleared out the IO rifles in the swift of a pen stroke.. But what happens when she's gone? If you know the law, and understand how the AG has defined a vague discrepancy, then there's no confusion about what the state will and will not allow. if you decide to come to your own conclusion about what "substantially identical" means, then you risk the state not agreeing with your terms. The thing is, if you know the AWB statute, then you should know the AG guideline. The problem is that no one knows either.

 

I get the idea behind having it ALL in the statute, but NJ would easily argue they have a guideline for the vague discrepancy, and i guarantee all it would accomplish is adding the current guideline into the current statute. Are they fighting to get rid of the statute? or clarify these vague discrepancy's? I don't see how adding to it will help, because if the guideline were to disappear, one could argue a semi-auto is not substantially identical to a assault weapon in any terms. One could make any argument really, but you would have to prove it in court.

There is a reason why you rarely (if ever) see people anyone prosecuted for possession of an AW that is not mentioned on "the list", it's because it's unclear if it's actually illegal. Most prosecutors do not what to take a chance and lose a case where it is unclear if a certain firearm is illegal or not, it looks bad on their record and could open up the possibility that more guns could be ruled legal that are now avoided by most people because they aren't sure of their legality. Most of the time, when someone gets busted for having an AW, they usually have mags with a capacity over 15 rounds, if the gun is not on the list they will prosecute for the mags because that is a slam dunk for the prosecution.

 

The AG can say whatever they want, that is not law unless a judge rules in agreement, which is something we have had very little of in NJ.