SAF Sues New Jersey for "Justifiable Need"

Patrick · Nov 22, 2010

We're seriously in danger of derailing this thread by now.

My personal feeling is that eligibility to arms is predicated on certain characteristics to which nearly all of us agree. And remarkably, those characteristics happen to run roughly analogous to the right to vote.

I'd prefer to see the "permit" become nothing more than a box on your Driver's License: "Carry Authorized". Or more likely, bold print at the top saying "NOT AUTHORIZED FOR CARRYING ARMS" to those few who are disqualified. The rest are presumed eligible.

The mechanics of this are simple: when you apply for your DL they enroll you much like the "Motor Voter" laws that register you to vote. While you are waiting on the final license, they perform a simple background check. For those who do not need a driver's license, they can get a state ID much like many people I know in NY City have - a non-driver "driver's license" that does the same. Most everyone has one.

A permit to carry arms need not be troublesome. Frankly, the above process I outline would be pretty much the same as many "Constitutional Carry" proponents espouse, but technically under the covers it is a permit system. It would just be a transparent system. And automatic. Meaning any adult that gets an ID or Driver's License would automatically be opted in.

Will MD ever do this? Hell no.

But we are now under Federal jurisdiction. That means our friends in Congress can make this a reality in one fell swoop. It's a serious option we should consider. I'm surprised I have not seen others pushing it.

EDIT: The issue with NICS checks weeding out carriers is that NICS is a point of sale system tied to a single gun. Nothing stops me from physically carrying your gun after you buy it, whether you loan it to me or I steal it. Under a NICS-based system, the only way to determine that I am authorized to carry arms is if someone (the government) tracks the serial numbers of the guns I bought under NICS and then is able to look them up if there is later a question of whether I am authorized to carry (a traffic stop, for instance). Basically, it requires registration of arms. The point of a permit system is to identify legitimate carriers...not legitimate guns. The right to carry is tied to people, not objects.

press1280 · Nov 22, 2010

Patrick said:
Uh...this is a facial challenge to the entire NJ handgun permitting system. That's big.

A facial challenge essentially means that "there are no circumstances under which the law or restriction can be legal." That means the SAF is arguing that the law is always illegal, under all circumstances, at all times and in every case. Literally it means "on its entire face, the law is wrong." I know a lot of folks here will say "well, duh", so let me explain why this is a big deal...

So far all the challenges filed (Woollard, for instance) have been as-applied, meaning that the laws "as applied" to the plaintiff's are wrong. Woollard has zero use of the word "facial" in its complaint. Making a facial challenge to the entire set of code that governs permitting in NJ is a lot different than saying "as applied, this law is unconstitutional."

The difference: when you challenge a law in its application, you need only prove that the law is wrong in the single context of your plaintiff. So if you make an argument for your case, you win.

When you challenge a law facially, you need to prove that the law is invalid in all cases, even those cases in which your plaintiffs are not a party. If the law can be demonstrated valid in even one case, you lose.

So successful facial challenges are rare even though the challenges themselves are common - a lot of lawyers/plaintiffs with little real experience file them all the time. They lose all the time, too. It's typically a sign of a doomed case. They are usually swept aside in short order.

The upside of a facial challenge: reduced discovery. You cannot reasonably depose every potential plaintiff in the case, so there is a limit on what you can do. It also puts the onus on the defendant to defend their laws. The government gets an "easy out" -- all they need to do is describe a single instance in which their laws are constitutional and they win. Case over. Done.

Defendants typically love facial challenges because they can be dealt with cleanly, quickly and decisively. As the defendant, I just find a valid case and walk away. I get to "prove" my innocence any way I want rather than investigate and argue the merits of my restrictions against a single (or select few) plaintiffs who were specially chosen to present the maximum headache to me. The many facial challenges are usually handed to the less experienced attorneys because they can be handled with ease (not this case, though).

The Upshot:

This is a massively ballsy move.

What it does is force the 2A issues right to the front of the argument. It literally opens the door to an easy defense on the part of the government - all they need to do is talk about how their restrictions on 2A are legal, even once. But if NJ fails to find/argue that point, they lose in all cases. That's the nature of facial challenges: all or nothing.

FWIW, the SAF also bring an as-applied "backup" challenge. But the obvious main argument is the facial challenge. From anyone but the SAF (even the NRA), I would have responded derisively and ignored the case from then on. But this one seems like it might have legs.

Every time I think I've seen it all, those kids at the SAF toss another one at me. This is downright entertaining stuff. Glad I signed up for the season pass.

Interesting. But in reality, this "justifiable need" is no different than CA's "good cause" or MD's version(the phrase escapes me). It's all cut from the same Jim Crow cloth.

Will this facial challenge speed things up and prevent NJ from doing the endless rope-a-dope that MD,NY,and CA are doing?

ezliving · Nov 22, 2010

Flashback to 1968: Time Magazine
NEW JERSEY'S MODEL GUN LAW

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,900179,00.html

How well did that work out for them?

Thanks: http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2010/11/17/article-on-new-jerseys-1968-gun-law/

megaman · Nov 22, 2010

joppaj said:
Wow... Ok, that's a big brass balls kind of move

Well as someone who is from NJ and very happy this lawsuit was filed, NJ is a big brass balls kinda place.... :lol:

Check us out at
njgunforums.com/forums

This should be very interesting. NJ gun law is so screwed up any relief is a good thing for us.
You dont even want me to get into detail about how arbitrary it is here...How petulant our legislature is about guns, how anti many of our LEO's are, how 'odd' it is to someone that someone could own 20 guns...and on and on....NJ truly is the last communist republic in the USA, the stated goal via state court/legislative decisons over the last 30 years are 'When dealing with firearms, the citizen acts at his own peril' (State of NJ vs. Pelliteri, NJ Superior Court 1996)
So we have an uphill battle, and a gov that cant run nationally because believe it or not, CHRIS CHRISTIE IS ANTI GUN!!!
Anti Gun politicians wont win on a national level, and as much as America is loving some Chris Christie now, once they get light of his ANTI Gun stance. I cant really blame the guy, our legislature is filled with liberal LUNATICS and a few republicans will not go for it as they are RINOS

Fodder4Thought · Nov 22, 2010

Patrick said:
Uh...this is a facial challenge to the entire NJ handgun permitting system. That's big.

A facial challenge essentially means that "there are no circumstances under which the law or restriction can be legal." That means the SAF is arguing that the law is always illegal, under all circumstances, at all times and in every case. Literally it means "on its entire face, the law is wrong." I know a lot of folks here will say "well, duh", so let me explain why this is a big deal...

So far all the challenges filed (Woollard, for instance) have been as-applied, meaning that the laws "as applied" to the plaintiff's are wrong. Woollard has zero use of the word "facial" in its complaint. Making a facial challenge to the entire set of code that governs permitting in NJ is a lot different than saying "as applied, this law is unconstitutional."

The difference: when you challenge a law in its application, you need only prove that the law is wrong in the single context of your plaintiff. So if you make an argument for your case, you win.

When you challenge a law facially, you need to prove that the law is invalid in all cases, even those cases in which your plaintiffs are not a party. If the law can be demonstrated valid in even one case, you lose.

So successful facial challenges are rare even though the challenges themselves are common - a lot of lawyers/plaintiffs with little real experience file them all the time. They lose all the time, too. It's typically a sign of a doomed case. They are usually swept aside in short order.

The upside of a facial challenge: reduced discovery. You cannot reasonably depose every potential plaintiff in the case, so there is a limit on what you can do. It also puts the onus on the defendant to defend their laws. The government gets an "easy out" -- all they need to do is describe a single instance in which their laws are constitutional and they win. Case over. Done.

Defendants typically love facial challenges because they can be dealt with cleanly, quickly and decisively. As the defendant, I just find a valid case and walk away. I get to "prove" my innocence any way I want rather than investigate and argue the merits of my restrictions against a single (or select few) plaintiffs who were specially chosen to present the maximum headache to me. The many facial challenges are usually handed to the less experienced attorneys because they can be handled with ease (not this case, though).

The Upshot:

This is a massively ballsy move.

What it does is force the 2A issues right to the front of the argument. It literally opens the door to an easy defense on the part of the government - all they need to do is talk about how their restrictions on 2A are legal, even once. But if NJ fails to find/argue that point, they lose in all cases. That's the nature of facial challenges: all or nothing.

FWIW, the SAF also bring an as-applied "backup" challenge. But the obvious main argument is the facial challenge. From anyone but the SAF (even the NRA), I would have responded derisively and ignored the case from then on. But this one seems like it might have legs.

Every time I think I've seen it all, those kids at the SAF toss another one at me. This is downright entertaining stuff. Glad I signed up for the season pass.

Dude! You totally just got quoted at SnowflakesInHell!

EDIT: Aha - I now see that it was you who left the comment in the first place, along with the link. Still good, though. Sebastian is one of my daily reads, along with Uncle, Tam, and Marko, all of whom at least merit a sampling if you haven't yet.

Patrick · Nov 23, 2010

Sebastian has a good blog and even with its PA focus he's frequently more plugged into national issue than most. I picked up quite a bit on the drama that is NRA from him and John at Only Guns and Money. Sebastian was one of the first bloggers to go in-depth on the NJ suit, so I meta-linked him back to this thread.

We need a blog. It would make things easier.

Fodder4Thought · Nov 23, 2010

Patrick said:
Sebastian has a good blog and even with its PA focus he's frequently more plugged into national issue than most. I picked up quite a bit on the drama that is NRA from him and John at Only Guns and Money. Sebastian was one of the first bloggers to go in-depth on the NJ suit, so I meta-linked him back to this thread.

We need a blog. It would make things easier.

A MDS blog would be interesting, I'll give you that.

Actually, I can't really see a downside if it's implemented properly, except that it may take activity away from the forum.

press1280 · Nov 23, 2010

Patrick said:
Actually, it's not as bad as it sounds.

First, the NJ laws are exceptionally onerous. Judges in the judicial are responsible for giving permits and act as processors of the executive, who is implementing the laws of the legislative. So one judge to rule them all.

Also, NJ laws in general are horrible when it comes to 2A. I have not gone through the whole thing in detail, and strictly speaking this is only a high-level overview of the arguments yet to be made. But on first blush this is not a waste of time.

And there still is a challenge to the laws as-applied.

From a strategy point of view, the complaint pretty much calls for NJ to argue 2A to defeat the facial challenge (not a given), and at the same time the SAF is still pursuing the standard as-applied logic of our other cases. In essence, the SAF has upped the ante but not really given anything away.

What it does do is put more pressure on the state to make the fight. MD/NY have done all they can to avoid the fight over 2A. Here NJ gets some incentive to bring out their best arguments against our rights, because if they win they get to claim victory on at least half the challenge.

But it would still leave the rest of the as-applied challenge intact (though perhaps weakened in some ways depending on the findings of the facial challenge).

Note this is a more risky challenge as it is subject to an easier motion to dismiss. But the NJ laws are so strict, I have a feeling it won't be as easy as some wish it to be. When I get time to outline the exact arguments I will try. Until then, maybe someone else will walk us through it...

Play Devil's Advocate: can someone here find an example when the NJ laws would be constitutional? That's what I intend to do when I get time.

And don't let any of this fool you: there will be tons of procedural challenges, challenges to SAF standing, ripeness complaints and maybe even Younger abstention arguments. NJ will try to draw this out.

The only way I see "justifiable need" being constitutional is if an otherwise clean individual went through the process and put down he needed the permit to sell drugs or rob a bank. Otherwise, they have used justifiable need, which is not a "longstanding prohibition" to deny someone. Also, if justifiable need was deemed OK with a court, then the same could be used for a handgun in the home. Then you could have yourself a de facto gun ban.

But as a facial challenge, couldn't this move through the courts faster than the other as-applied cases?

Patrick · Nov 23, 2010

"Good and Substantial Cause" should cease to exist in a few short years, because as you note justification enough is found in our fundamental rights. I'm sure some will keep a request for justification on their permit request forms, just like the ATF asks why you want to build an SBR on your Form 1. My last excuse was "Pumpkin Hunting & All Other Lawful Purposes". Some have just noted "Zombies".

And many permit applications for protest activities also request the justification/cause. I remember one in LA where someone apparently noted "Pissed Off". That was enough.

Direct facial challenges usually get dispensed with faster than other cases, but this is typically because they are a sign of an inexperienced attorney on the plaintiff side. I doubt that is the case here. We can expect the long haul. NJ is going to take this exceptionally seriously, meaning they will delay as good/better than the rest of them.

It is possible that the facial nature would keep this in a "rule of law" context with no discovery required for some of the complaint. That means the SAF could file a Motion for Summary Judgment early and try to force a ruling. This case seems a bit more aggressive in its approach and it involves a new set of lawyers who are used to high-stakes games (from what I can tell of their history). So who knows?

FWIW, NJ has a lot of damn fine lawyers to fight this on both sides.

I think this one is going to be interesting.

Dean Speir · Nov 24, 2010

Some thoughts on entrys in this thread

Hello, all.

Grey_Man said:
Is it just me or these guys doing more than the NRA?

You spotted that right off, didn't you!

Directly they don't… and won't unless they can co-opt and control the action, which is what they tried to do in D.C. v. Heller (back when it was still Parker v. D.C.) until the judge refused to grant the NRA's motion for consolidation. (Ironically, Heller, a licensed special police officer for District of Columbia, had initially approached NRA about a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban, but NRA [of which I am a long-time full-price Life Member] declined.)

But as the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. is the NRA state affiliate, ILA is in a position to distance or associate itself from this action as it sees fit.

tdt91 said:
I should hope that by now ALL MDshooters are members of SAF!!!

If you are not, WHY? It's ten bucks.

Well said. SAF doesn't have a lot of visibility here in the East, and while it isn't the 800-pound simian that NRA is, they have been there time and time again. NRA picks and chooses a bit too conservatively for my tastes, #1, and, #2, a considerable number of "wins" claimed by NRA were actually SAF cases NRA subsequently joined… hey!, I'd love to be able to get to the parimutuel window at Pimlico after I saw how the field was performing in the backstretch!

What disgusted me is that when such a case received a favorable decision, NRA's presss releases made the announcements, and virtually never bothered to mention SAF's contrabutions.

For their part, SAF's releases always mentioned NRA's participation, (Full Disclosure: I was Industry Editor from 1990-1994 for The New Gun Week which is owned by SAF.)

Patrick said:
…because a group of shark-lawyers have made them a target.

C'mon now, at least one of these "shark-lawyers," Rob Firriolo, is not only an experienced high level litigator, but has for years performed endless hours of pro bono publico service to individual gun-owners and the Second Amendment! (Full Disclosure: he also serves as my second on The Gun Zone since its launch more than a decade ago.)

O, yeah, he's also an active shooter!

And lemme ask you this, Patrick, who would you want representing you in any important case, a local attorney you know from the Elks Club, or a "shark-lawyer" from a firm like Duane Morris?

Rob also broke the MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al news at "Federal court challenge to New Jersey handgun permit laws filed today," and will continue to track it there.

Right now Jeff Snyder and I are working on setting up a joint interview with attorneys Firriolo and David Jensen.

• Dean, jus' visiting from The Gun Zone…

Trapper · Nov 24, 2010

Dean Speir said:
Patrick said:

…because a group of shark-lawyers have made them a target

Click to expand...

C'mon now, at least one of these "shark-lawyers," Rob Firriolo, is not only an experienced high level litigator, but has for years performed endless hours of pro bono publico service to individual gun-owners and the Second Amendment! (Full Disclosure: he also serves as my second on The Gun Zone since its launch more than a decade ago.)

O, yeah, he's also an active shooter!

And lemme ask you this, Patrick, who would you want representing you in any important case, a local attorney you know from the Elks Club, or a "shark-lawyer" from a firm like Duane Morris?

Rob also broke the MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al news at "Federal court challenge to New Jersey handgun permit laws filed today," and will continue to track it there.

Right now Jeff Snyder and I are working on setting up a joint interview with attorneys Firriolo and David Jensen.

• Dean, jus' visiting from The Gun Zone…

I think you've mis-interpreted Patrick's message. By calling them "shark-lawyers" he meant ones that would not file a losing case. Thes guys are in it for the win, and the $$.
Which is a good thing, if these lawyers are willing to take the case, then it is a pretty strong case. Also, if they win, it will make other States pay attention because they don't want to lose funds to litigation when things are already tight.

krucam · Nov 24, 2010

Trapper said:
I think you've mis-interpreted Patrick's message. By calling them "shark-lawyers" he meant ones that would not file a losing case. Thes guys are in it for the win, and the $$.
Which is a good thing, if these lawyers are willing to take the case, then it is a pretty strong case. Also, if they win, it will make other States pay attention because they don't want to lose funds to litigation when things are already tight.

It was a touch on the condescending side, particularly for a 1st post, no?

Patrick · Nov 24, 2010

Dean Speir said:
C'mon now, at least one of these "shark-lawyers," Rob Firriolo, is not only an experienced high level litigator, but has for years performed endless hours of pro bono publico service to individual gun-owners and the Second Amendment! (Full Disclosure: he also serves as my second on The Gun Zone since its launch more than a decade ago.)

O, yeah, he's also an active shooter!

And lemme ask you this, Patrick, who would you want representing you in any important case, a local attorney you know from the Elks Club, or a "shark-lawyer" from a firm like Duane Morris?

Rob also broke the MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al news at "Federal court challenge to New Jersey handgun permit laws filed today," and will continue to track it there.

Right now Jeff Snyder and I are working on setting up a joint interview with attorneys Firriolo and David Jensen.

• Dean, jus' visiting from The Gun Zone…

Dean, welcome to the forum.

...

Good to see we have solid pro-2A people behind the case. The SAF is a class act and we all have confidence in their choices. But seeing as how you are new here, I'll help you a bit in your understanding of our view of the world: the history of the last civil rights movement involved a great number of memorable cases (Brown, for instance). But it took more than landmark decisions to fix America...it took hundreds of lawsuits small and large to bring down the walls of government reticence. And it wasn't really until lawsuits seeking punitive damages from governments - and officials on a personal basis - that things really started to turn.

We like history and expect it to unfold again much as it did before. That means we need some sharks on our side.

We talk about this a few pages back. Back up a bit and peruse. Most importantly, stick around and join the conversation. It's always good to have a new voice around. I'll check out your site. Sorry, I don't think anyone here has ever heard of it. It's nice to make new friends.

Dean Speir · Nov 24, 2010

Trapper said:
I think you've mis-interpreted Patrick's message. By calling them "shark-lawyers" he meant ones that would not file a losing case. Thes guys are in it for the win, and the $$.

In my neck o'the land, "shark-lawyer" is considered a pejorative, so yes, I probably did mis-interpret. My apologies to Patrick.

krucam said:
It was a touch on the condescending side, particularly for a 1st post, no?

Sorry, I missed the part during the registration process which spelled out about noobs needing to have hat-in-hand for a certain number of initial posts.

[Ack! I fear I've done it again.]

Patrick said:
It's always good to have a new voice around.

Apparently I didn't come with the proper amount of deference, so please cough discreetly and look away when I get my bearings.

Many of us long-time Noo Yawkers don't travel all that well, especially this close to the traditionally more genteel Mason-Dixon Lions. I've made my comment about SAF (v. NRA-ILA), Rob Firriolo, etc., so I'll just get back to my sites and blogs.

But before I go, perhaps someone here can point me to an illuminating discussion of something you have in common with Noo Yawk… IBIS. Did it actually lead to a conviction of a homicide where the pistol (a Model 21 Glock, I believe) was never recovered? We have the CoBIS system, and it's been nothing but a tax drain for over nine years.

Ethan83 · Nov 24, 2010

Dean Speir said:
But before I go, perhaps someone here can point me to an illuminating discussion of something you have in common with Noo Yawk… IBIS. Did it actually lead to a conviction of a homicide where the pistol (a Model 21 Glock, I believe) was never recovered? We have the CoBIS system, and it's been nothing but a tax drain for over nine years.

You mean the whole fired shell-casing thing? It's a complete joke, and as far as I know, the MDSP has neither achieved nor even actually done anything with whatever data they have. See:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=23618

boricuamaximus · Nov 24, 2010

Dean Speir said:
In my neck o'the land, "shark-lawyer" is considered a pejorative, so yes, I probably did mis-interpret. My apologies to Patrick.

Sorry, I missed the part during the registration process which spelled out about noobs needing to have hat-in-hand for a certain number of initial posts.

[Ack! I fear I've done it again.]

Apparently I didn't come with the proper amount of deference, so please cough discreetly and look away when I get my bearings.

Many of us long-time Noo Yawkers don't travel all that well, especially this close to the traditionally more genteel Mason-Dixon Lions. I've made my comment about SAF (v. NRA-ILA), Rob Firriolo, etc., so I'll just get back to my sites and blogs.

But before I go, perhaps someone here can point me to an illuminating discussion of something you have in common with Noo Yawk… IBIS. Did it actually lead to a conviction of a homicide where the pistol (a Model 21 Glock, I believe) was never recovered? We have the CoBIS system, and it's been nothing but a tax drain for over nine years.

Not that you came with the proper amount of deference, it's that we are on our toes because some people sign up with the intention to get troll points. We do have some stupid laws as mentioned before like the shell casing and internal lock laws. The internal lock is very aggravating because if there is no lock for the handgun then it cannot be sold.

hvymax · Nov 24, 2010

I guess we will have to excuse Dean New York is notorious for crassnes and ignorance as fundamental civil rights. At least he's not from Joysey.

Patrick · Nov 25, 2010

hvymax said:
I guess we will have to excuse Dean New York is notorious for crassnes and ignorance as fundamental civil rights. At least he's not from Joysey.

Dean Speir said:
Many of us long-time Noo Yawkers don't travel all that well, especially this close to the traditionally more genteel Mason-Dixon Lions.

I'm from NY and had my share of run-ins elsewhere in this nation. Ironically, about the only to places that could tolerate me (at first) were the military and Los Angeles. Unfortunately there's nothing genteel about most of this area anymore. I am fortunate to live in one of the few old tobacco growing areas, so life is quiet - at least until I step out back in the woods and shoot guns. But between DC and Baltimore are 8 million people working and living fast lives. Kinda like another place I know...

Dean, you don't need to come hat in hand. We're serious about new voices. No apologies required from those who contribute.

...perhaps someone here can point me to an illuminating discussion of something you have in common with Noo Yawk… IBIS. Did it actually lead to a conviction of a homicide where the pistol (a Model 21 Glock, I believe) was never recovered? We have the CoBIS system, and it's been nothing but a tax drain for over nine years.

Our shell casing tracking system is a bit of a mess. A few years after having stood up, our accidental Republican Governor at the time had MSP send four casings from guns known to be in the system to the lab. Of course...no hits. He promptly de-funded the operation.

Our state police have testified that its a waste of money and time. Rumors abound about barrels of shell casings sitting around waiting for their day to be entered.

But the system is not unique and the original intent of the law - to restrict the number of models available due to presumed manufacturer unwillingness to send casings - has not been met. Given the number of states that require them now, it's just another step in the manufacturer's process.

More onerous to us is a handgun roster that must approve "safe" guns before they can be sold. But the aforementioned governor of ours stocked the board with pro-gun people and it really is little more than a speedbump today. And if CA gets their board declared unconstitutional, we will surely follow because our gun laws were copied direct from the left coast.

Likewise we have a list of banned "machine pistols" that are more curio guns than anything else. Our "regulated guns" list is basically a hodge-podge of so-called "assault weapons" that require a seven day wait. We have no restrictions on magazine capacity, but do have a restriction in transfer of any over 20. So we drive across the border to VA or PA and legally return with piles of 30-round PMags. Possession is no crime here.

Likewise, NFA items are fine. Several on this board have machine guns, and I have a fair share of NFA-registered short-barreled weapons and some silencers. All legit here.

We like to whine a lot about MD's anti-gun stance, but truth is that outside of the denial of our rights to carry in public...we're got it better than most. Even Alabama had NFA restrictions for many, many years while we had none. And compared to NY/CT/DC/MA/CA/IL/WI/HI we are closer to Texas than not.

When you get down this way, drop a line and swing by. Fall is the best time of year here. I'll take you out shooting. It's the least I can do for a fellow NY'er.

hvymax · Nov 25, 2010

I must say we have no shortage of crassholes in tobacco country either.

Dean Speir · Nov 25, 2010

Patrick said:
Dean, you don't need to come hat in hand. We're serious about new voices. No apologies required from those who contribute.

You'll excuse me if I'm getting a "mixed message" on this. Some seem to bristle in judgement. Kinda comes with being a noob to just about any Forum.

Your additional information to my add-on inquiry is appreciated, and there's some of it I'd like to respond to; as has been noted, this thread is careening off-topic, so I relocated that to a more appropriate thread I started last night, and in which you will appear as if by sorcery. (I may be new to this Forum, but I've been around the 'Net a bit over the past 16 years.)

Memo to "hvymax:" Such invidious characterizations! May your trigger control exceed your impulse control by a multiple of 10X.

SAF Sues New Jersey for "Justifiable Need"

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

MSI Executive Member

Ultimate Member

Besieger

Member

New Dad!!

MSI Executive Member

New Dad!!

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Member

I'm a member too.

Ultimate Member

MSI Executive Member

Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Banned

MSI Executive Member

Banned

Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics