Ouch. 

11 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Seriously?  You have to admit this thread has taken on the karmatic quality of a used tampon. 

Do I think gun owners (and homeowners who feel overtaxed... and several other categories of people) should do everything in their power to fight a Murphy governorship? Yes.

Do I think we should ASSUME a lower round limit? No.

Do I think we can engage in "what if" conjecture and start formulating our own plans accordingly as we each see fit in case it happens? Yes.

Do I think we should be able to do that without ducking incoming flames from other posters? (or, umm, tampons as it were?) Yes.

And finally... Do I indeed like men who respond to a swift, corrective rap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper? Why, YES... yes I do... very much!

 

 

Do I think gun owners (and homeowners who feel overtaxed... and several other categories of people) should do everything in their power to fight a Murphy governorship? Yes.
Do I think we should ASSUME a lower round limit? No.
Do I think we can engage in "what if" conjecture and start formulating our own plans accordingly as we each see fit in case it happens? Yes.
Do I think we should be able to do that without ducking incoming flames from other posters? (or, umm, tampons as it were?) Yes.
And finally... Do I indeed like men who respond to a swift, corrective rap on the nose with a rolled up newspaper? Why, YES... yes I do... very much!
 
 

Note: my comments above are not directed at you, or really any of the other posters specifically. Rather a observation regarding the tone and overall usefulness of the thread in general.

And for the record, I don't see you as a rolled up newspaper girl... handcuffs and feather tickler seem more appropriate.

5 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Note: my comments above are not directed at you, or really any of the other posters specifically. Rather a observation regarding the tone and overall usefulness of the thread in general.

I hear you. I think you, Zeke, Walt and others are objecting to what seems to be a defeatist, "throw in the towel" attitude before the battle has even started, am I right? I get it. I think this thread rubbed a lot of people the wrong way. I should probably be sensitive to the fact that as a new gun owner I have so much less invested (politically, financially, etc.) than many of you. Frankly, I'm going to drop out of this thread --- it's irritating people too much --- not something I want to do.

And for the record, I don't see you as a rolled up newspaper girl... handcuffs and feather tickler seem more appropriate.

Whatever floats your boat, my dear! 

Supreme Court will rule on these infringements of our Second Amendment Rights and will rule in our favor. Especially once The next Liberal drops and Trump replaces them with someone even more Conservative than Thomas. The Second Amendment Trump's State Rights. That's why it is the 2nd and state rights is the 10th.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

6 hours ago, capt14k said:

Supreme Court will rule on these infringements of our Second Amendment Rights and will rule in our favor. Especially once The next Liberal drops and Trump replaces them with someone even more Conservative than Thomas. The Second Amendment Trump's State Rights. That's why it is the 2nd and state rights is the 10th.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

SCOTUS can rule all they want. But unless there's a mechanism to ensure "compliance," the rulings don't mean much.

Again, I'm thinking we should tie receipt of federal funds for various projects to compliance with those rulings.  I know some say that's illegal now, but it should be revisited.

SCOTUS can rule all they want. But unless there's a mechanism to ensure "compliance," the rulings don't mean much.
Again, I'm thinking we should tie receipt of federal funds for various projects to compliance with those rulings.  I know some say that's illegal now, but it should be revisited.

It's not completely illegal. In a case of refusing a Supreme Court Ruling it would be allowed to withhold Federal Funds. When was the last time a state said the hell with what the Supreme Court says? Brown v Board of Ed? Once National Guard was brought in Wallace backed right down.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

It's not completely illegal. In a case of refusing a Supreme Court Ruling it would be allowed to withhold Federal Funds. When was the last time a state said the hell with what the Supreme Court says? Brown v Board of Ed? Once National Guard was brought in Wallace backed right down.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I had thought that, after the "federal highway funds for raising the drinking age to 21" thing, they cleaned up a lot of those provisions that permitted them to do it.  But if there's still a way to do it or circumvent that law, we should go for it!

I was about to cite that same example. Another one is the drinking age thing where they withheld highway funds   

The difference is, as always, no one is sending out the national guard to preserve  the 2nd amendment. Even though it is a civil right just as much as brown v. BofE. 

2 minutes ago, HBecwithFn7 said:

I had thought that, after the "federal highway funds for raising the drinking age to 21" thing, they cleaned up a lot of those provisions that permitted them to do it.  But if there's still a way to do it or circumvent that law, we should go for it!

We were typing at the same instance. 

I had thought that, after the "federal highway funds for raising the drinking age to 21" thing, they cleaned up a lot of those provisions that permitted them to do it.  But if there's still a way to do it or circumvent that law, we should go for it!

Actually the restrictions were not put in place til the Obamacare ruling. That was the cop out on why Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. That he did so in order to put limits on the commerce clause. In reality Roberts wrote both the dissent which was originally the majority opinion and the majority opinion. He really changed his vote IMO because TPTB threatened taking his illegally adopted Irish children.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

If you expect SCOTUS to step in an knock down a mag capacity limit you will be waiting a long, long time -- ie, forever.  Not gonna happen. Stop with the SCOTUS white knight fantasies.  It doesn't work that way.  Have we learned nothing from the denials of cert in every single carry case thus far (fingers crossed on Peruta, which we will know about on Monday, but don't hold your breath)?

19 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

Actually the restrictions were not put in place til the Obamacare ruling. That was the cop out on why Roberts changed his vote at the last minute. That he did so in order to put limits on the commerce clause. In reality Roberts wrote both the dissent which was originally the majority opinion and the majority opinion. He really changed his vote IMO because TPTB threatened taking his illegally adopted Irish children.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Not to go "off topic," but that right here should DQ him as a SCOTUS justice, let alone CJOTUS.   I realize he's a conservative, but I could see some key 2A topics come up, and someone else threatening him, accordingly.  He's not rock solid like Thomas, Alito, etc.  We may have a "conservative majority now," but can we really guarantee with Kennedy and Roberts being a bit "flaky..."?  I'd like to see either one of them replaced along with whatever of the liberal justices are going as well. Then I think we'll be a lot more secure.

Hopefully, his adopted children are all legal adults now, and now free and not needing guardianship protection by Roberts.

If you expect SCOTUS to step in an knock down a mag capacity limit you will be waiting a long, long time -- ie, forever.  Not gonna happen. Stop with the SCOTUS white knight fantasies.  It doesn't work that way.  Have we learned nothing from the denials of cert in every single carry case thus far (fingers crossed on Peruta, which we will know about on Monday, but don't hold your breath)?

Because of the way the cert rules work. Once we have a 7 justice majority things will change. Yes they will rule on mag limits by using the rationale that it hurts sportsmen participating in 3 gun events and other shooting events. This will lead to an overturning of all Unconstitutional Laws.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Not to go "off topic," but that right here should DQ him as a SCOTUS justice, let alone CJOTUS.   I realize he's a conservative, but I could see some key 2A topics come up, and someone else threatening him, accordingly.  He's not rock solid like Thomas, Alito, etc.  We may have a "conservative majority now," but can we really guarantee with Kennedy and Roberts being a bit "flaky..."?  I'd like to see either one of them replaced along with whatever of the liberal justices are going as well. Then I think we'll be a lot more secure.
Hopefully, his adopted children are all legal adults now, and now free and not needing guardianship protection by Roberts.

Kennedy I consider more of a Liberal than a Conservative. The 3 oldest on the bench are Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Good chance one of them doesn't make it to 2020. Possibly 2. When we maintain control of POTUS, House and Senate through a least 2024 maybe all 3. That would just leave Obama's 2 quotas and Roberts. I am not ecstatic about Roberts. He should disqualify himself and step down for personal reasons, but he won't. However he is still more solid than Kennedy.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

2 minutes ago, capt14k said:

 

Kennedy I consider more of a Liberal than a Conservative. The 3 oldest on the bench are Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. Good chance one of them doesn't make it to 2020. Possibly 2. When we maintain control of POTUS, House and Senate through a least 2024 maybe all 3. That would just leave Obama's 2 quotas and Roberts. I am not ecstatic about Roberts. He should disqualify himself and step down for personal reasons, but he won't. However he is still more solid than Kennedy.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Fair enough..

19 hours ago, Rob0115 said:

I had some for breakfast today at Honey's in Fairfield  Maybe I had too many.  

WTH, call me when you are in the area... Nothing better than pancakes. Other than donuts which are both tied for first place.

Just now, bhunted said:

WTH, call me when you are in the area... Nothing better than pancakes. Other than donuts which are both tied for first place.

You got it but I also put waffles way up there too.  

Here's something I was thinking about on a bit of a tangent but could be argued is a problem for mag limits.  Let's say national CCW reciprocity happens, let's further suppose my favorite carry piece is above any ban states mag limit.  Let's say I pack a Glock 17 (I don't but let's say for hypothetical reasons).  Am I to change my piece when I go state to state or find compliant mags for each place I travel?  Should I take 10 rounds out of the mags in NY until I exit the state?  If national CCW passes, I would imagine this will end up catching a lot of people in this screwed up web of laws.  Look at how many people CCW not realizing that they have no reciprocity with a particular state.  I do believe it's on them to know where they can and cannot carry but keeping a compiled list of mag limits?  Maybe it's a stretch but I'm looking for any angle where these dopey laws could be challenged as an undue burden.  

Rob, To touch on your point: 

Currently under HR 218/LEOSA any sworn LEO in good standing can carry a handgun off duty in all 50 states.

However, we still have to abide by the states magazine capacity laws.

When the act was originally passed any ammunition restrictions had to be followed as well - for example a Cop from TX could not carry hollow points and had to restrict his gun to a 15 round mag when coming to NJ.

The last update eliminated any ammo restrictions (as long as long as the ammo was what your dept issued/mandated - This change was due to insurance issues of all things, not the lawmakers getting smart about ammo choices) but did nothing to address any magazine restrictions.

So currently, yes, even though I basically have "national reciprocity" I have to be aware of magazine capacity restriction whenever I travel to make sure I am not in violation. I can only carry 10 round mags when I go to NY, CT, MA, DC, MD, or HI. 

I don't see this changing anytime soon either.

1 hour ago, Rob0115 said:

Here's something I was thinking about on a bit of a tangent but could be argued is a problem for mag limits.  Let's say national CCW reciprocity happens, let's further suppose my favorite carry piece is above any ban states mag limit.  Let's say I pack a Glock 17 (I don't but let's say for hypothetical reasons).  Am I to change my piece when I go state to state or find compliant mags for each place I travel?  Should I take 10 rounds out of the mags in NY until I exit the state?  If national CCW passes, I would imagine this will end up catching a lot of people in this screwed up web of laws.  Look at how many people CCW not realizing that they have no reciprocity with a particular state.  I do believe it's on them to know where they can and cannot carry but keeping a compiled list of mag limits?  Maybe it's a stretch but I'm looking for any angle where these dopey laws could be challenged as an undue burden.  

I can see NJ busting balls on mag cap limits/,possesion of too big mags, hollow points, zoning, brandishing, anything too resist. and otherwise make ccw unwelcome

From the current Title 2C - Chapter 39:

"j. Any person who knowingly has in his possession a large capacity ammunition
magazine is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree..."

A fourth degree felony crime is punishable by up to 18 months in prison and/or a fine up to $10,000.

I don't see them reducing any penalties.

29 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Rob, To touch on your point: 

Currently under HR 218/LEOSA any sworn LEO in good standing can carry a handgun off duty in all 50 states.

However, we still have to abide by the states magazine capacity laws.

When the act was originally passed any ammunition restrictions had to be followed as well - for example a Cop from TX could not carry hollow points and had to restrict his gun to a 15 round mag when coming to NJ.

The last update eliminated any ammo restrictions (as long as long as the ammo was what your dept issued/mandated - This change was due to insurance issues of all things, not the lawmakers getting smart about ammo choices) but did nothing to address any magazine restrictions.

So currently, yes, even though I basically have "national reciprocity" I have to be aware of magazine capacity restriction whenever I travel to make sure I am not in violation. I can only carry 10 round mags when I go to NY, CT, MA, DC, MD, or HI. 

I don't see this changing anytime soon either.

Thanks for clarifying.  

3 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

Because of the way the cert rules work. Once we have a 7 justice majority things will change. Yes they will rule on mag limits by using the rationale that it hurts sportsmen participating in 3 gun events and other shooting events. This will lead to an overturning of all Unconstitutional Laws.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

 

Don't tie the 2A to sportsmen or 3 gun. The 2A has nothing to do with sport shooting, competition, or hunting.

4 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

Don't tie the 2A to sportsmen or 3 gun. The 2A has nothing to do with sport shooting, competition, or hunting.

Wow. It so easy to get side tracked. You are so right. 

Don't tie the 2A to sportsmen or 3 gun. The 2A has nothing to do with sport shooting, competition, or hunting.

I agree it doesn't it's just the initial rationale they will use IMO. Then eventually they will rule that gun rights shall not be infringed. That the Second Amendment was meant as a fail safe in case all other checks and balances fail. I'm just being realistic that it will happen in phases over the course of multiple rulings to get to the point where the court once and for all defines the Second Amendment as our forefathers meant it to be.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

2 hours ago, High Exposure said:

Rob, To touch on your point: 

Currently under HR 218/LEOSA any sworn LEO in good standing can carry a handgun off duty in all 50 states.

However, we still have to abide by the states magazine capacity laws.

When the act was originally passed any ammunition restrictions had to be followed as well - for example a Cop from TX could not carry hollow points and had to restrict his gun to a 15 round mag when coming to NJ.

The last update eliminated any ammo restrictions (as long as long as the ammo was what your dept issued/mandated - This change was due to insurance issues of all things, not the lawmakers getting smart about ammo choices) but did nothing to address any magazine restrictions.

So currently, yes, even though I basically have "national reciprocity" I have to be aware of magazine capacity restriction whenever I travel to make sure I am not in violation. I can only carry 10 round mags when I go to NY, CT, MA, DC, MD, or HI. 

I don't see this changing anytime soon either.

LEOSA starts out with "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State...".  The "notwithstanding" in legal terms really means "in spite of".  It really nullifies any State law unless we say it's okay in the law.  For example LEOSA says the State can restrict carry in or on State or local government buildings or property. IANAL but IMO the "notwithstanding" nullifies magazine and ammo restrictions.   There have been a few test cases regarding LEOSA (none in NJ I know of) and the guy carrying under LEOSA has always prevailed.

It seems in many cases cops are smarter than some of the lawyers.  I'll get to that.

LEOSA also allows retired LEOs to carry hollowpoints.  The NJ AG has an opinion letter out there saying out of state active and retired LEOs can't carry hollowpoints.  It goes on to say that a retired LEO who's a NJ resident must get a NJ RPO permit and can't carry in NJ under LEOSA.  This is contrary to the Federal law.  The fact that I haven't heard of a retired LEO, NJ resident or not, arrested for carrying hollowpoints reinforces my statement that cops are smarter than lawyers in some cases.

 I believe state magazine limits don't apply to anyone carrying under LEOSA. However just because I'm retired doesn't mean I've lost my smarts.  I don't want to be a test case and abide by any state magazine restrictions wherever I go.

Should not the conversation be,

mag restrictions are an infringement. How do we we push back?

you will never win, acting like a loser...

jus sayen 

17 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Should not the conversation be,

mag restrictions are an infringement. How do we we push back?

you will never win, acting like a loser...

jus sayen 

I agree Zeke, however I think there are more important priorities.  I could live with a 15 rd magazine limit (for a while) if NJ became a shall issue state.  The only way that's going to happen is with a ruling from SCOTUS.

I think CCW in NJ is more like likely to happen before mag limits and AWB get addressed.  We didn't lose these rightsites all at once and we're not getting them back all at once.

Voting for Guadagno may only maintain status quo.  That's better than losing more rights under a liberal.

As stated in another thread, I'm out of NJ by the time a new ban would come around. Going to make sure I vote and do the email/fax/letter to representatives until I actually leave, but one point I would like to mention...

I have a Marlin Model 60, which is the current design that is NJ compliant (not the 18 round gun). My father bought it for me as a Christmas present when I was a kid. I really could care less what NJ law comes up for guns holding 10+ rounds... that is one firearm I WILL NOT get rid of. The 15 round FBI magazine for my S&W 10mm is one that I'm less attached to... but is also not going anywhere (paid enough for that magazine that I probably could have got a used Glock 20 for [emoji41]). I'll get a cheap gun safe to leave at my godmother's house in PA before I'd ever let go of those.

Hopefully, I can sell off my 15 rounders for guns that hold more when I leave (AR, AK, Beretta PX4, CZ75, and M1A; probably would keep the M1As and the cutdown ARs, since they are still useful as a bench magazine). Would rather offer them to NJ residents that are stuck here, but I guess Colorado is another option if it does go full-retard.

9 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

I agree Zeke, however I think there are more important priorities.  I could live with a 15 rd magazine limit (for a while) if NJ became a shall issue state.  The only way that's going to happen is with a ruling from SCOTUS.

I think CCW in NJ is more like likely to happen before mag limits and AWB get addressed.  We didn't lose these rightsites all at once and we're not getting them back all at once.

Voting for Guadagno may only maintain status quo.  That's better than losing more rights under a liberal.

Oddly. I don't think the residents of Nj view themselves as Americans?

sooo a penslytucky residing American is more Free?

when it comes to civil liberties, states have no rights.

 

but yes Uncle Grizz, let's climb up the hill! I sure as shit ain't gonna tell you the hill is" too big, or too hard".