Sign in to follow this  
Importunate Tom

New Jersey Going Nutz?

Recommended Posts

New Jersey Going Nutz?

They're reducing the defined size of a "large capacity" magazine but they seem to have stuck in this really nutty exception!

An "assault weapon" is...

Quote

(4)   A semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding [15] 10 rounds.  “Assault firearm” shall not include a semi-automatic rifle which has an attached tubular device and which is capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

And as for magazines...

Quote

y.    "Large capacity ammunition magazine" means a box, drum, tube or other container which is capable of holding more than [15] 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly therefrom into a semi-automatic firearm.  The term shall not include an attached tubular device which is capable of holding only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.

And the Statement at the end says:

Quote

The bill exempts from the 10 round limitation those semi-automatic rifles which have an attached tubular magazine and which are capable of operating only with .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.  This exemption would permit the sale and possession of a popular beginner gun, the Marlin Model 60, often referred to as the “Boy Scout gun.”  These firearms are low caliber and the attached tubular magazine cannot be quickly reloaded. 

WTF? That's the exact model for which they prosecuted Joseph Pelleteri after he won it in a police raffle.

Now it seems the Nutterz have taken over the NJ legislature and they're going to allow battlefield .22s. There will be blood in the streets!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think this would be the best day EVER for you. Someone finally realized how traumatic regulation of .22 rifles can be and carved out an exception B):D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

I would think this would be the best day EVER for you. Someone finally realized how traumatic regulation of .22 rifles can be and carved out an exception B):D

.22's with fixed magazines are exempted from some "assault weapon" definitions but not others. Mine is exempt from DiFi's bill but covered by the FL version.

But I'm still traumatized by the bans covering my wife's Ruger 10-22 too. It just doesn't seem all that scary to me, even with the telescoping stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lying Malarky said:

Thats because you're not Palestinian. ....

I'm kinda close. When warmongering right wing types don't like my view of nation building or of the security state, they tend to call me a commie libtard Paulestinian. Because Ron Paul was such a commie, if you don't follow their language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Marlin will go back to making the original M60 model?

Quote

Marlin Changes to accommodate

After N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5f went into effect, the Marlin Firearms Company shortened the magazine to hold just 15-rounds of .22LR ammunition and literature stopped mentioning that it could hold even more rounds of .22 Long/Short if desired. This led to an eventual redesign of the gun to where the barrel itself, after 2000, was shortened to match the length of the smaller capacity tube.

I think it was a better gun back when it was designed to please customers, not NJ grabberz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jocal505 said:
46 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Do you really think this should be the last generation of Floridians to be free to own a battlefield .22 with a fixed magazine like mine?

I'm still on the fence. I need much more discussion of battlefield .22's. Thanks, Tom.

I tried to help you out with a walk down memory lane in this thread, Joe.

You remember your assault weapon, right? Same model as Joseph Pelleteri's, if I recall.

I was sad that you destroyed it since Marlin quit making that version in response to NJ grabberz.

Now I have some hope they might revive the version you owned. Yeah, yeah, I'm hoping for blood in the streets again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I tried to help you out with a walk down memory lane in this thread, Joe.

You remember your assault weapon, right? Same model as Joseph Pelleteri's, if I recall.

It's always nice to have a pic to go with a memory, so here's a pic of the type of assault weapon that may soon be allowed again in NJ:

marlin-assault-rifles.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another view of one of the weapons of war that may soon cause mayhem again on New Jersey streets.

On 3/2/2018 at 1:54 PM, jocal505 said:

Model 60, after.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So under that definition, even .22 semiautos that are legal in England, would be illegal in NJ.

What a bunch of morons "we've" elected.

Correction. Apparently .22 semiautos have been illegal in NJ since 1990! Jesus. Remind me never to live there. High taxes, higher insurance, toxic waste dumps everywhere you turn, and stupid dumb gun laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2018 at 4:08 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

I wonder if Marlin will go back to making the original M60 model?

I think it was a better gun back when it was designed to please customers, not NJ grabberz.

This from your link, is quite astounding. Do they even understand the difference between a .22 and a 30 caliber?:

<<"[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent." State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. at 184-85. When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license.
Affirmed. >>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Here's another view of one of the weapons of war that may soon cause mayhem again on New Jersey streets.

 

I'm gonna move forward, Tom. Developments go beyond the plots of Lassie and Flipper. I suggest you move forward as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, fastyacht said:

This from your link, is quite astounding. Do they even understand the difference between a .22 and a 30 caliber?:

<<"[T]he dangers are so high and the regulations so prevalent that, on balance, the legislative branch may as a matter of sound public policy and without impairing any constitutional guarantees, declare the act itself unlawful without any further requirement of mens rea or its equivalent." State v. Hatch, 64 N.J. at 184-85. When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril. In short, we view the statute as a regulatory measure in the interests of the public safety, premised on the thesis that one would hardly be surprised to learn that possession of such a highly dangerous offensive weapon is proscribed absent the requisite license.
Affirmed. >>

Any gun can be a highly dangerous offensive weapon, so from that point of view there is no difference between a .22 and other guns.

That's why Joe had to destroy his.

What's inexplicable here to me is why New Jersey, of all states, would be contemplating this change? We've seen here on the forum how well grabberz react to suggestions that .22's like the one Joe used to own should not be covered by these bans. The general reactions are "shut up" or "you're insane" or "you must like murdered children and racist mass murderers" and some really vitriolic ones.

So how did anyone get away with even suggesting this up in New Jersey? And who was the owner of those giant, titanium balls anyway? My hat's off to whoever is responsible. Must be getting lots of hate up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

Any gun can be a highly dangerous offensive weapon, so from that point of view there is no difference between a .22 and other guns.

That's why Joe had to destroy his.

What's inexplicable here to me is why New Jersey, of all states, would be contemplating this change? We've seen here on the forum how well grabberz react to suggestions that .22's like the one Joe used to own should not be covered by these bans. The general reactions are "shut up" or "you're insane" or "you must like murdered children and racist mass murderers" and some really vitriolic ones.

So how did anyone get away with even suggesting this up in New Jersey? And who was the owner of those giant, titanium balls anyway? My hat's off to whoever is responsible. Must be getting lots of hate up there.

In CT, not sure about NY or MA, you can have a semiauto pistol grip .22 rifle with detachable magazine. Not sure about the magazine capacity.

Edit: Now I'm not so sure that that is even true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the thread title and expected to see photos of Muslims still cheering the fall of the twin towers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fastyacht said:

In CT, not sure about NY or MA, you can have a semiauto pistol grip .22 rifle with detachable magazine. Not sure about the magazine capacity.

If you were stoopid enough not to buy a standard capacity magazine when it was legal, your opportunity to do so in that state has already ended.

Current owners like Billy who registered their magazines can keep them until death. Current Uncooperative owners number in the tens of thousands, outnumbering the entire prison population of the state. Their guns are illegal but they're keeping them anyway. They might have Uncooperative kids who do the same. But after this generation of owners dies, only Uncooperative types will have standard capacity magazines in that state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Nice! said:

I saw the thread title and expected to see photos of Muslims still cheering the fall of the twin towers.

Allowing weapons of war back on the streets is far scarier. I'm still not sure why they're doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What NJ Is Doing

Still a bit of a mystery to me.

Quote

In stark contrast to Washington, Gov. Phil Murphy in his first 100 days alone has already elevated gun violence to be a paramount issue as he promised to do when he ran for office.  The Governor has launched a historic multi-state States for Gun Safety initiative to curb gun trafficking; rolled back dangerous Christie administration regulations liberalizing concealed carry permits; placed $2 million in his budget for gun violence research; authored a "name and shame" executive order to expose the states exporting crime guns to our streets; and pledged to sign into law an important six-bill legislative package being advanced by majority leaders Loretta Weinberg and Louis Greenwald that includes a magazine clip limit.

I guess the fact that the new rules lower the "magazine clip" size limit to 10 rounds is viewed as negating the fact that they'll be allowing battlefield .22's with fixed magazines back on the streets. I don't know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

I don't know.

There's a lot we don't know, yet few admit this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, jocal505 said:
1 hour ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

https://www.marlinforum.com/articles/new-jersey-and-marlin-22-assault-rifles.22/

Wiki? No thanks. That's where the image came from and they seem to know a bit more about battlefield .22's than you do. Since the magazines are obviously different lengths, your assertion that they're both 20" is amusing.

Look closely and be a victim too; demonstrate some honesty for once.

You are mistaken, and must look beyond "obvious" here. The magazine lengths are the same. The barrel lengths are not, causing your confusion. 

 

But your article is not the source of your battle weapon confusion. From your whiney article...

Quote

"It's definitely not an assault weapon," Van Drew said. 

 


No, New Jersey is. And Florida. And Oregon. And the US Senate.

Basically, any place where gungrabby TeamD types want to call ordinary .22's weapons of war and ban them causes me to be mystified about how they can be soooo friggin' stooopid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lark said:

Pretty frightening assault weapon there but kinda pricey.

You could get two S&W Victory .22 assault weapons for the same money, though flowers are extra.

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lark said:

The guy who did that to a perfect fine rifle is a fucking idiot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lying Malarky said:

The guy who did that to a perfect fine rifle is a fucking idiot.

 

He did keep the original furniture, as the first photo shows. It's black, so a bit frightening, but you could put it back on the gun and it wouldn't be an assault weapon any more.

battlefield-22-furniture.jpg

It's also a pretty good illustration of something I mentioned elsewhere about battlefield .22's with telescoping stocks.

On 2/19/2018 at 7:43 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

There is also a list of exemptions for various models of rimfire rifles. It says, in part:

Quote

‘‘Ruger  10/22  Autoloading  Carbine  (w/o folding stock)
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Compact
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Sporter
‘‘Ruger 10/22 Target

The bolded part is the problem. My wife put a telescoping stock on her gun, indicating her disdain for the lives of children.

The definitions section of the law makes it clear that she probably intends to conceal her rifle on her way to shoot up a school.

Quote

‘‘(41)  The  term  ‘folding,  telescoping,  or  detachable stock’  means  a  stock  that  folds,  telescopes,  detaches  or  otherwise operates to reduce the length, size, or any other dimension,  or  otherwise  enhances  the  concealability,  of  a  firearm.

She has the original furniture for her gun. It's smoother and would probably make the gun easier to conceal than the folding version that DiFi would ban from the market.

Of course, owners of saws could find a way to make the original furniture even more concealable. The horror.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Jersey Went A Little Too Nutz For Cops
 

Quote

 

But the measure, which made possession of larger magazines a crime, with a few exceptions, had unintended consequences for police officers in the Garden State.

...

The law passed in June changed New Jersey's magazine limit from 15 rounds to 10 rounds, putting in place a 180-day "grace period" for gun owners to turn in large magazines that are now illegal.

...

Most police service weapons use magazines containing between 12 and 17 rounds, he said, and police officers are never completely off the clock. 

...

It also allows off-duty police to possess a larger magazine "provided it is used with the officer's service firearm issued by the officer's employer."

The law would effectively establish different rules for how much ammunition police and civilians can carry. It's unclear whether the existing law has affected any active-duty cops. 

Gun rights advocates opposed the magazine limit signed by Murphy last month, saying it would not prevent gun violence and instead would turn law-abiding gun owners into criminals if they didn't surrender their now-illegal magazines on time.

 

I doubt many gun owners will be graceful enough to turn in their property without compensation during the "grace period."

The different rules for off-duty cops vs civilians is almost guaranteed to generate a lawsuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Uncooperative Tom said:

New Jersey Went A Little Too Nutz For Cops
 

I doubt many gun owners will be graceful enough to turn in their property without compensation during the "grace period."

The different rules for off-duty cops vs civilians is almost guaranteed to generate a lawsuit.

The part where it put in exception for retired police generated a lawsuit about the time the ink was drying on the governor's signature.

Not that a hearing about an injunction has happened yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilians shouldn't have these weapons of war!

Militarization of police is bad!

Oops! We forgot to militarize the police!

(Likely NJ Grabberz quote)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3rd Circuit Upholds NJ Ban
 

Quote

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The appeals court said the law limiting high-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

 

I haven't read the opinion yet. I'll be interested to see how the fifth amendment claim was handled. The usual approach is to deem the previously-legal property a "public nuisance" an eliminating a public nuisance requires no compensation.

I expect gun owners to note and return that level of respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q737OhieRJg3fvv-n9y42G1QtmDmvwiO/view

Sure enough, in a footnote:

Quote

New Jersey’s LCM ban seeks to protect public safety
and therefore it is not a taking at all. A compensable taking
does not occur when the state prohibits the use of property as
an exercise of its police powers rather than for public use.

They do not rely on that "nuisance" justification because, they say, others suffice. Specifically, you can modify your magazine or sell it. Either of which would likely cost more than the magazine did originally. Just involving the magazine in a "boating accident" is way cheaper, especially if you already boat anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Discussion of the dissent from the above opinion
 

Quote

 

The 3rd Circuit's choice of intermediate rather than strict scrutiny relies on some rhetorical sleight of hand. "If the core Second Amendment right is burdened, then strict scrutiny applies; otherwise, intermediate scrutiny applies," Shwartz writes. "Thus, laws that severely burden the core Second Amendment right to self-defense in the home are subject to strict scrutiny."

In his dissent, Bibas highlights the majority's slipperiness in applying strict scrutiny only when the right to self-defense in the home is "severely" burdened. "The Second Amendment's core is the right to keep weapons for defending oneself and one's family in one's home," he writes. "The majority agrees that this is the core. So whenever a law impairs that core right, we should apply strict scrutiny, period." By weighing the severity of the burden imposed by the LCM ban before settling on a level of scrutiny, Bibas says, the majority "puts the cart before the horse," since "we never demand evidence of how severely a law burdens or how many people it hinders before picking a tier of scrutiny."

...

Why does the 3rd Circuit majority, like the other courts that have upheld legal limits on magazine capacity, treat the right to keep and bear arms so casually? "It offers only one reason: guns are dangerous," Bibas writes. "But as Heller explained, other rights affect public safety too. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments often set dangerous criminals free. The First Amendment protects hate speech and advocating violence. The Supreme Court does not treat any other right differently when it creates a risk of harm. And it has repeatedly rejected treating the Second Amendment differently from other enumerated rights. The Framers made that choice for us. We must treat the Second Amendment the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights."

 

I think he's right about the bolded part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expecting more tragic boating accidents soon..
 

Quote

 

Neither Governor Phil Murphy or AG Grewal has any interest in going door-to-door looking for 15-round magazines. And when the State Police’s Lt. Schafer says, “We will enforce the law of the state,” that means they’ll charge you if they happen find +10-round magazines in your car during a traffic stop. Or if someone breaks into your home and they happen to see an offending magazine when they investigate.

So look for New Jersey’s gun owners to respond to their state’s latest Second Amendment infringement much as New Yorkers did. By flipping an invisible bird at the Governor and legislature and claiming all of their standard capacity magazines had been lost in an unfortunate series of tragic boating accidents.

In the mean time, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, have pledged to appeal the decision. And New Jersey’s gun owners will bide their time, hoping for a favorable ruling.

 

It's going to be an ugly weekend on the water up there since owners have until Monday to surrender or destroy any of their previously-legal property that doesn't get lost before then.

Ooops, I splashed it again!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I searched in vain for the slew of accident reports I expected out of New Jersey. The whole, "I lost it in a capsize" thing is a lot more believable if there's an official report but I guess people aren't bothering. Is it too cold for that up there already? Winter is starting to hit here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a week since loads of New Jersey residents were faced with the choice of surrendering their property or becoming criminals.

The lines to turn them in would have choked traffic, but as usual, the vast majority of gun owners did not cooperate with the confiscation program and are now criminals.

The weird thing is, all the people who complain about "unfettered" gun ownership for everyone in the US are not celebrating in this thread.

Can I get a:

FETTERS AT LAST! FETTERS AT LAST! THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE CAN USE FETTERS AT LAST ON THESE NAUGHTY GUN OWNERS!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 3:36 PM, SloopJonB said:

You gun fanatics are so fucked in the head that the mere mention of anything less than completely unfettered access to guns means "take all the guns away"


"Turn them in or become a felon" is not quite "completely unfettered access."

On 2/15/2018 at 12:35 PM, Ed Lada said:

The one factor that distinguishes the US from the other countries, is the virtually unfettered access to guns.  Period.  end of discussion.


Because we sure as hell don't want to discuss the TeamD gun bans and confiscation programs that put the lie to this statement.

FETTERS AT LAST! FETTERS AT LAST!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2018 at 10:17 PM, Steam Flyer said:

What they forget is that government is necessarily by consent of the governed.

Hah! This comment is funnier in this thread, where the message from the government to my elk is:

Attention dangerous nuisance creators!

Consent and give up

On 11/25/2018 at 12:38 PM, Raz'r said:

your kid-killer

Or else!

And try not to be so divisive!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how many banned magazines were turned in as required?

It's A Big Secret!
 

Quote

 

...

AmmoLand also asked the Governor's office what Gov. Murphy thinks of users on the internet saying that the ban is unenforceable and laughing at the Governor's attempt at regulating magazine sizes.

Gov. Murphy and his office refused to comment on these gun owner's opinions.

AmmoLand also asked Gov. Murphy's office about the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey residents. Once again AmmoLand was referred to the New Jersey Attorney General's office.

In this case, Lauchaire would not offer a comment and referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey State Police. Lauchaire stated she was aware of AmmoLand's previous inquire to the State Police on the number of magazines turned in meaning that State Police contacted the AG’s office about our request for information.

The New Jersey State Police have not officially responded to our request on the number of magazines that were turned over by citizens.

Two sources from within the State Police, who spoke to AmmoLand on condition of anonymity, told AmmoLand News that they both do not know of any magazines turned over to their agency and doubted that any were turned in. They also stated that the State Police also engaged the AG's office for guidance on how to respond to inquiries such as ours. They were unaware if the Attorney General has returned to their request for guidance.

All the local police departments that AmmoLand contacted stated that they have not had any magazines turned into them.

AmmoLand has filed a Freedom of Information Act request with The New Jersey State Police to get an official count of the number of magazines turned in by New Jersey citizens. We will update the story if our FOIA request is fulfilled.

 

Hah! The Governor says ask the AG. The AG says ask the state police. The state police won't say, and are asking the AG what they should say.

Here's what: "The vast majority of gun owners have decided not to comply with our confiscation program and we don't have a SOLution."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jocal505 said:
3 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

This is why the current confiscation program in New Jersey is absurd. The argument is that you can modify your magazine to be compliant with the new rules. But modifications cost money and you quickly run up against the full purchase price of a new one.

That and the issue of not wanting to be told what to do by clueless grabbers are why compliance is still hovering at zero.

Have a cite?


Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTF? Tom is playing games with thread transfers, using partial quotes. What an impressive little guy.

Tom's sea lion.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update for off duty cops
 

Quote

 

Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik is outraged by New Jersey's "crazy" magazine ban, but only because he worries that it could be enforced against off-duty police officers. The original version of the law included an exemption for "any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty," who was allowed to have a magazine holding up to 15 rounds. An amended version that Gov. Phil Murphy is expected to sign soon extends that exemption to officers who are off duty.

On Twitter last Friday, Kerik complained that Murphy "is endangering the life of every off duty NJ cop! Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don't give a damn about magazine capacity...So he takes the good guy's ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!" Last Sunday on Fox News, Kerik vented some more. "You're taking the ability away from the cops to possess the rounds they may need in a gun battle," he said. "That's insane."

Something similar happened with the seven-round magazine limit that New York legislators hastily enacted in 2013, except in that case it was former cops who were overlooked. They angrily demanded the double standard to which they were accustomed, and the legislature gave it to them a few months later. Notice that Kerik readily concedes New Jersey's magazine limit will have no impact on criminals, and he takes it for granted that the difference between 10 and 15 rounds could be the difference between life and death for someone using a gun in self-defense. Yet somehow that extra margin of safety is intolerable for citizens without badges.

 

Seems it's a little late for Gov Murphy to make that change. After all, off duty cops, being law abiding and all, presumably have already altered, sold, or destroyed any magazines not lost in freak boating accidents. Either that or they're felons with badges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

1,638 FIREARM BILLS WERE TRACKED IN 2018

In 2018, the gun lobby was largely thwarted in its efforts to weaken gun laws.

Notably, the gun lobby’s efforts to repeal laws requiring gun owners to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms failed in every state where this legislation was introduced.

67 gun safety boating accident bills have been signed into law in 27 states in 2018

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Giffords-Law-Center-Year-End-Tr

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Fixed.

You feature pics of purple tophats,  flowers in guns, dogballs on blankets, and boating accidents too.

And you won Racebaiter of the Year today, with a strong finish. You are wonderful, a vortex of Libertarian intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

It’s all about you and  your dogballs.


Well, no, lots of the bans and confiscation programs exempt guns like mine because of the fixed magazine. New Jersey recently legalized them, as noted in the topic post.

But even if they don't cover my gun, they often cover my wife's gun due to the removable magazine and the scary adjustable stock. I object to that too.

In other cases, such as in CT and CA, the bans exempt our guns completely because they fire the censored ammo. I object to those bans too. Knowing that the next generation of backstay's can't inherit billy's gun makes me feel no safer.

If you ever get tired of talking about banning my gun, feel free to visit one of the dozens of threads I've started on other topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:


Well, no, lots of the bans and confiscation programs exempt guns like mine because of the fixed magazine. New Jersey recently legalized them, as noted in the topic post.

But even if they don't cover my gun, they often cover my wife's gun due to the removable magazine and the scary adjustable stock. I object to that too.

In other cases, such as in CT and CA, the bans exempt our guns completely because they fire the censored ammo. I object to those bans too. Knowing that the next generation of backstay's can't inherit billy's gun makes me feel no safer.

If you ever get tired of talking about banning my gun, feel free to visit one of the dozens of threads I've started on other topics.

With a few exceptions (MJ, police  and criminal justice reform) your other topics are tedious and boring.  Perhaps it’s just your writing style.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

With a few exceptions (MJ, police  and criminal justice reform) your other topics are tedious and boring.  Perhaps it’s just your writing style.

There's even a thread for gossip about me. I'm surprised your many quick searches didn't find it when you were a FakeNewb!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Goes Nutz

Quote

 

A Salem County man was arrested on charges he opened fire with a rifle in Pennsville Township on New Year’s Day, damaging three homes and a parked vehicle, police reported.

Jesus Morales, 33, of Pennsville, told police he was involved in a physical altercation on Harvard Road early Tuesday morning and that he fired an AR-15 rifle at a vehicle as it fled the area.

No injuries were reported.

 

...

Investigators found several spent rounds in the driveway of a home and soon identified Morales as their suspect.

He was charged with aggravated assault, unlawful possession of an assault rifle and possession of an extended (30-round) magazine.

 

Good thing this idiot wasn't tidy enough to pick up his shell casings.

The possession "offenses" will probably carry more jail time than the actual crime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2018 at 4:02 AM, dogballs Tom said:

3rd Circuit Upholds NJ Ban
 

Quote

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected a challenge to New Jersey’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

The appeals court said the law limiting high-capacity magazines does not violate the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

 

I haven't read the opinion yet. I'll be interested to see how the fifth amendment claim was handled. The usual approach is to deem the previously-legal property a "public nuisance" an eliminating a public nuisance requires no compensation.

I expect gun owners to note and return that level of respect.

16 hours ago, Laker said:
On 1/20/2019 at 11:02 PM, Zonker said:

Nazi gas chambers? Immoral or not?

(OK not saying walls = nazi gas chambers, but some inanimate objects can be immoral!)

The argument for an assault rifle being an immoral object could then be made.  I can hear the explosion from such as dogballs Tom over this concept. 


You act like that would be something new and I haven't commented on it before.

It's not and I have.

Can you comment on the explosion now that you've heard it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCOTUS Tea Leaves
 

Quote

 

...

This week yielded another indication that something big in Second Amendment law is indeed afoot. Rogers and Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Grewal is a test case that is a head-on challenge to New Jersey’s “may issue” system of concealed carry licensure…which in reality is “no issue” for anyone but the politically connected. Like the First, Second, and Fourth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the Third Circuit refused to take the Supreme Court’s Heller decision seriously, and rubber-stamped the New Jersey laws.

The plaintiffs filed a cert petition, powerfully calling out the Third Circuit and other lower courts for essentially ignoring Heller. The usual suspects (including a collection of over twenty state Attorneys General) have filed amicus curiae briefs in support.

New Jersey, on the other hand, declined to file a response to the cert petition. That’s not unusual, because the vast number of cert petitions don’t have a prayer. Parties thus often choose not to expend resources filing a response to something that has less than a 1% chance of being granted – especially given that if a cert petition is granted, they will have the right to file a brief on the merits.

The cert petition was scheduled to be considered at the Court’s conference today. However, a couple of days ago, the Court directed New Jersey to file a response (due March 21) to the cert petition.

What does this portend? Obviously, if the votes weren’t there to overrule the Third Circuit, the Court could (and likely would) have just denied the cert petition, as it has done on many post-Heller cases. It’s possible that the request for a response came from a member of the anti-2A wing of the Court, as a way of temporarily delaying a grant of cert. It could also be someone like Chief Justice Roberts recognizing that cert is likely to be granted, and, for public relations reasons, wanting New Jersey to be officially heard before the Court does so.

...

 

I have never heard of the Supreme Court directing a party to respond to a cert petition. Maybe it happens and I just don't hear about it.

Doesn't seem like it can be an idle request out of curiosity though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

SCOTUS Tea Leaves
 

I have never heard of the Supreme Court directing a party to respond to a cert petition. Maybe it happens and I just don't hear about it.

Doesn't seem like it can be an idle request out of curiosity though.

It seems to happen quite a bit for certain kinds of cases, and you don't have to look to hard for examples of the court asking for a reply and then denying cert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bpm57 said:

It seems to happen quite a bit for certain kinds of cases, and you don't have to look to hard for examples of the court asking for a reply and then denying cert.

What kinds of cases? Got some examples?

 

20 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Obviously, if the votes weren’t there to overrule the Third Circuit, the Court could (and likely would) have just denied the cert petition

That does seem obvious. They have a LOT of cert petitions to deny. It's one of their main things, so they're pretty efficient about it when possible.

It wasn't possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Jersey has identified our fundamental problem:

Poor people exercising their rights!
 

Quote

 

...

New Jersey residents already have to jump through a lot of hoops to buy a gun, though Murphy's proposal would make the process considerably more expensive. As State Police Capt. Stephen Jones detailed to New Jersey 101.5 in 2016, it starts at the police department, where would-be gun owners must apply for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. It takes about a month or more for the police to run a background check on someone's criminal and mental health history. (This check is in addition to the one required by federal law at the point of sale for people looking to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.) The New Jersey ID card itself currently costs $5, but Murphy wants to raise the price to $100.

Potential handgun buyers must go through an additional, separate process to obtain a handgun permit, which currently costs just $2. Under Murphy's proposal, it would cost $50.

And what happens if you want to carry that handgun around? Well, good luck. It's largely illegal to open carry a handgun (though not a legally owned rifle or shotgun). Carrying a concealed handgun is permitted, but New Jersey is a "may issue" state, meaning you have to prove that you have a good reason to carry. It costs $20 to obtain a concealed carry permit. If Murphy gets his way, that will rise to $400.

...

 

Everyone knows that people are poor because they're lazy and bad.

This should help. Those stupid, bad poor people may be able to come up with  a few bucks, but let's see them come up with a hundred!

(Not that there's anything regressive or troubling about this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing how concern over economic repression of the rights of poor people just completely evaporates. Sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hasher said:

You have seen the gun sales?  We are flooding the streets with cheap iron from China and Russia.  I'd prefer that guns were expensive and the industry paid for the chaos they create.


So do you think New Jersey is on the right track?

Similar to your idea, they want to ensure that only people with spare cash around can exercise second amendment rights.

A sensible proposal, as I noted above, because

On 4/26/2019 at 4:33 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Everyone knows that people are poor because they're lazy and bad.

This should help. Those stupid, bad poor people may be able to come up with  a few bucks, but let's see them come up with a hundred!

(Not that there's anything regressive or troubling about this.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/2/2019 at 7:31 PM, Left Shift said:

The poor just gotta pay their fair share.

Everybody knows that poor people are awfully hard on the infrastructure.  They wear boots and drive their V-8 cars at rush hour.  A lot of their houses aren't even properly insulated.


Yeah, higher crime rates too, so making the exercise of second amendment rights unaffordable for them is just good policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:


Yeah, higher crime rates too, so making the exercise of second amendment rights unaffordable for them is just good policy.

How about....Let's assure the poor folks 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and especially 8th amendment rights, maybe before we work on the budgetary impacts of the 2nd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Left Shift said:

How about....Let's assure the poor folks 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and especially 8th amendment rights, maybe before we work on the budgetary impacts of the 2nd.

How about... less hypocrisy and more acknowledgement that the treatment of one right affects the rest.

Oh, and acknowledgement that Favre will always be the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Left Shift said:

How about....Let's assure the poor folks 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and especially 8th amendment rights, maybe before we work on the budgetary impacts of the 2nd.

TeamR will get right on that. Just after TeamD gets right on assuring poor folks have second amendment rights.

It's the Duopoly Catch (censored) and is the reason some of us eschew the Duopoly. We like all of those rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Well, the right to own a gun is one reason to think that any persecuted and reasonably wealthy minority could take care of itself.

Fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 6:08 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 5/6/2019 at 12:33 PM, Left Shift said:

How about....Let's assure the poor folks 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and especially 8th amendment rights, maybe before we work on the budgetary impacts of the 2nd.

TeamR will get right on that. Just after TeamD gets right on assuring poor folks have second amendment rights.

It's the Duopoly Catch (censored) and is the reason some of us eschew the Duopoly. We like all of those rights.

 

1 hour ago, Dog said:
1 hour ago, billy backstay said:

 

There you go with the "whataboutis", again...

Yeah, I do that a lot. Is it a problem?


I think it's a problem with both halves of the Duopoly. An endless "we'll start respecting some rights if you start respecting others" from both halves results in...

an endless "we'll start respecting some rights if you start respecting others" from both halves.

But never actually starting respecting those rights by either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:
24 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Anyone with a thousand assault weapons is a HUGE threat to public safety.  Kind of like a a ginormous Africanized Bee Hive only way deadlier.

Glad this monster was stopped only a day after another school shooting. 

While he may not have been a threat to public safety; the assholes who knew he had the arsenal and would break into his house and steal them sure would be.


Perhaps but the Jersey SOLution of making exercise of second amendment rights unaffordable for poor people will hardly address that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2019 at 4:33 AM, Importunate Tom said:

New Jersey has identified our fundamental problem:

Poor people exercising their rights!
 

Quote

 

...

New Jersey residents already have to jump through a lot of hoops to buy a gun, though Murphy's proposal would make the process considerably more expensive. As State Police Capt. Stephen Jones detailed to New Jersey 101.5 in 2016, it starts at the police department, where would-be gun owners must apply for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. It takes about a month or more for the police to run a background check on someone's criminal and mental health history. (This check is in addition to the one required by federal law at the point of sale for people looking to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer.) The New Jersey ID card itself currently costs $5, but Murphy wants to raise the price to $100.

Potential handgun buyers must go through an additional, separate process to obtain a handgun permit, which currently costs just $2. Under Murphy's proposal, it would cost $50.

And what happens if you want to carry that handgun around? Well, good luck. It's largely illegal to open carry a handgun (though not a legally owned rifle or shotgun). Carrying a concealed handgun is permitted, but New Jersey is a "may issue" state, meaning you have to prove that you have a good reason to carry. It costs $20 to obtain a concealed carry permit. If Murphy gets his way, that will rise to $400.

 

16 minutes ago, Lark said:

Be careful Guy, that sounds dangerously anti Republican.    “Greed is good.  Wealth defines value and is proof of Jesus’s  endorsement.”    I’d hate for a single rant to alienate you both from here and your chosen party.   

Wow, who knew that New Jersey grabberz were TeamR?

Or at least aligned with the TeamR view that rights are for rich people?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not for nothing

more rounds = lousy shooters,

A good marksmen only needs one shot to hit a target, 

just as any sniper , most use single shot bolt action rifles, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this