"Stupid Is as Stupid Does"

You may recall Forrest Gump saying that line.

But now New Jersey has decided to compound their institutional stupidity:

 Former NYPD Commissioner Bernard Kerik slammed New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy over a gun law that bans off-duty officers in the state from carrying magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Kerik tweeted a leaked memo to law enforcement signed by Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo, which said violating the law would result in a fourth-degree crime.

NJ cops are protesting this law, on the grounds that it puts them at a severe disadvantage when they encounter criminal actions during off-duty hours and are required (by their terms of service) to intercede when possible.

The cops are also uncomfortable because the laws reduces their ability to defend themselves as "private citizens".

But what about the other "Private Citizens"? Don't they get to defend themselves?   

Out on the street, criminals can't differentiate between off-duty police (in mufti) and private citizens.    The difference doesn't matter to the mugger or the car thief who will steal your property while menacing you with a club, fists, knife, gun or just harsh language.   And if you take a few lumps during the process, or perhaps get stabbed or shot, isn't that better than a lot of "private citizens" running around with hidden guns in Trenton? 

(And cops can't tell the difference between armed private citizens and armed thugs, which is their story.)

If cops can potentially be under-armed with 10 round magazines, aren't their non-LEO neighbors equally at risk?

What I Like About "New Jersey"

The more I learn about New Jersey, the more I appreciate that they live 3000 miles away from me.

Why?

Not only DO they want to take guns away from their honest citizens, but they're proud of it!

If you live in New Jersey, you must relinquish your "hi-capacity magazines".  But there's an up-side:

You can sell them to New Jersey State Troopers, who CAN own those magazines which are a threat to domestic tranquility.

A Powerful Dissent Charges Judges Who Casually Uphold Magazine Restrictions With Disrespecting the Second Amendment - Hit ; Run : Reason.com:

New Jersey, which has banned magazines holding more than 15 rounds since 1990, imposed the stricter limit last June in response to mass shootings. The law requires owners of "large capacity magazines" (LCMs) to surrender them to the state, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners (such as retired police officers, who are exempt from the ban) by December 10. New Jersey residents who fail to comply by Monday will become felons, subject to a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison for possessing previously legal products.

(Emphasis Added)

Well, isn't that lovely.  The State of New Jersey can not only deprive you of your legally acquired property, but they can coerce you to arm the minions of The State.   You know ... the fellows who will be required by law to confiscate your legally acquired property.

Funny thing is, we always thought that the whole idea of the Constitution was to protect the private individual against the predatory powers of The State.   But today, you can feed the Power of The State by selling your "High Capacity" magazines to New Jersey State Troupers.  (Will they give you a dime on the dollar when they confiscate purchase your high-capacity magazines?)

I wonder what they are going to do with them.

Sucks to live in New Jersey!

Wasn't the purpose of the Second Amendment to protect private citizens against The State?  Now, in New Jersey, they're forcing encouraging their citizens to ARM the very people who can use your legally acquired magazines against you.

Two good things about this:

(1) at last you have acknowledged who The Masters Of Your Fate  are (and it isn't you)
(2) you can rest assured that the only guns which can be used against you are in "Good Hands" ... the State Troopers.

Good bye, New Jersey.  Americans will miss you.

California Prop 65

More California Scheming?

Due to California laws, products sold in that state need to meet "product safety regulations" ... even if those laws don't logically apply to that product.

Bond Arms Firearms Cause CANCER... According to California Prop 65 - The Firearm Blog:

 After August 30th, Bond Arms products will NO LONGER BE AVAILABLE (including guns, barrels, holsters, accessories, apparel, etc.) in the state of California due to Prop 65, which makes all manufacturers label products that could have a chemical that could cause cancer or birth defects, even though it won’t.

(link added)

As a blogger, I'm beginning to LOVE California!   Their laws and regulations are quite as nonsensical and inane as are those of New Jersey!

Oh ... and "Bizarre", too!

    Comparing California and New Jersey;

California has the most lawyers of any state in the union; New Jersey has the most toxic landfills.    Why?

 New Jersey won the coin toss.

New Jersey not only bans guns, but tracks guns they don't ban!

Murphy makes yet another move to combat gun violence in N.J. | NJ.com:

New Jersey has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the country's lowest gun mortality rates. But Murphy has repeatedly cited how the majority of gun deaths in the state involved a firearm that came from out of state. 

This directive requires agencies to share information regarding the manufacturer, importer, dealer, and the first purchase for such crimes. That will allow the State Police to identify any patterns and identify those who have unlawfully sold or bought the guns, according to the attorney general's office.

Lotsa luck with that.  It only regulates honest firearms owners ... where is the law that criminals will obey when they bring illegal firearms into New Jersey?

Answer: It's just another load of Liberal feel-good legislation which will have NO effect on firears imported from out of state.

But politicians need feel-good laws, because .... somebody needs to feel that their state is protecting them ... when their state is powerless to protect them by merely passing laws that nobody will obey.

what a bunch of maroons!

So tell me something I DON'T know!

NJ assemblyman wants to limit ammunition capacity: TRENTON  (January 31, 2018)-

A New Jersey assemblyman says that he wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic Assemblyman Lou Greenwald reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. Greenwald says that his plan will save lives.

I think that there exists in the word processors of New Jersey reporters a form which they can fill out to announce this same message ... every week.

All they have to do us fill in the blanks:

A New Jersey[enter position here] says that he/she wants to limit the amount of ammunition a firearm can hold in the state. Democratic [enter position here] [enter last name here] reintroduced legislation would limit the amount of ammunition a magazine could hold from 15 rounds to 10. The bill also designates a semi-automatic rifle with a fixed magazine capacity exceeding 10 rounds as a prohibited assault firearm. [enter last name here] says that his plan will save lives.
<30>

You know you've read the same press release at least once a month for the past ten years.

Democrats; they are true to their creed, they will do anything to get their name in the newspapers, and they haven't had an original thought since the Kennedy era.

Armed Churchgoers In NEW JERSEY? When Hell Freezes Over!

A Republican state lawmaker wants to make sure all New Jersey churches, synagogues, and mosques have someone with a gun on hand to protect congregants.

  Assemblyman Ron Dancer, R-Monmouth, has introduced legislation that would allow the state's places of worship to select a "qualified person" to carry a concealed handgun during services.  "Especially in this era, places of worship are a terrorist target," Dancer told NJ Advance Media on Thursday. "These are worshippers. They're praying. They're totally defenseless."

Whether the bill will get far in the Democratic-controlled state Legislature is another story. 

Now that Chris Christie has been retired,  the new Democratic Governor Phil Murphy is busy undermining all of Christie's more 'lenient' Gun Control decisions.

NJ.COM:

Throughout former Gov. Chris Christie's tenure the state Legislature was controlled by Democrats. But over eight years, they were never able to mount a veto override, allowing the Republican governor to kill bills strengthening gun control, funding family planning services and and raising the minimum wage.
But with a new governor, one who's vowed to sign every gun bill that hits his desk and signed an equal pay executive order within hours of taking office, many of those bills are expected to resurface with different results this time around.
Starting Monday, the Legislature will revisit bills felled by Christie's veto pen, including those that would have the state rejoin the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and restore funding for family planning services.

(Funny, I always thought that the Democrats were suppose to be the  all-accepting Party, and the Republicans were the party of "imposing restrictions";  it appears I was wrong, all these years.  What would Jack K. Say?)

This may be the Opening Round of Republican vs Democratic 2nd Amendment controversy under the (Democratic) Murphy Regime.

As strange as it sounds, New Jersey-ites who support the Second Amendment have been "spoiled" by the former governor.

Fisking the NY Daily News ... it's too much fun

The New York Daily News has its panties in a bind, and the resultant whining BEGS to be made fun of.  Why?  Because they're idiots, devoid of sense, and SCREAMING to be spanked on their naked butt-cheeks!

Not for nothing did the National Rifle Association pump $38 million into electing Donald Trump President and another $24 million to secure the grip of Republicans in the Senate.  Within grasp now looms a trophy long sought: federal legislation that would, if passed by Congress, extend the right to carry a concealed firearm in any one state, no matter how minimal the licensing standards, to all 50.

Here's the original article.   It's a rare screed which takes too much space to display the ignorance of the author:

But I'll do it anyway: one of my favorite things (besides kittens and mittens) is disemboweling New York Editorials.    It's a cheap shot but I don't feel guilty about pointing out the logical fallacies of East Coast Liberals.

Let us proceed with the evisceration:

The statements of the author of the NYDN article are identified by color;

My statements are embedded in indented paragraphs and black bold.

The point is, the NRA calls for identical concealed-carry laws in all states, so that a person who can legally carry a concealed firearm in his/her home state is not subject to arrest or harassment in a neighboring (or any other) state.   The author objects on the grounds that state laws are, and should be, more stringent than federal laws.

Here is the screed, with my embedded arguments.


The NRA’s dead aim - NY Daily News:

No matter how readily another state arms individuals already known to law enforcement as prone to violence, New York would have to allow its permit holders to carry a hidden pistol in public, overriding state law allowing gun permits only to those with the temperament and need for a firearm.

The Second Amendment applies to all peoples, all states, and carries the same weight as the right to have an abortion: whether you agree with it or not, it is the National Creed and it trumps (excuse the pun) State Laws.   If you're an adult, not a felon, and you are in control of your emotions (not a lunatic), your constitutional right to possess and carry a firearm is guaranteed.

 How the NRA's grades for pols shape U.S. gun policy So it would go for New Jersey, and Connecticut, and other states with stringent safety-focused prerequisites for carrying guns. Trump promised “national right to carry” as part of an absolutist Second Amendment agenda that would leave in place gargantuan loopholes in existing background checks for gun buyers, which allow anyone — convicted felons and the mentally ill among them — to purchase firearms on the internet or at gun shows without interference. 

This is a lie.
There are no "loopholes" in the Second Amendment.
 Convicted felons MAY have their 2nd Amendment rights reinstated after release, if they have not been convicted of violent felonies ... "Forgers" are not considered violent felons, for example.  Their 2nd Amendment rights MAY be reinstated upon application and case-by-case approval, but this is a federal issue and not affected by any National Rifle Association influence.

 Even someone on the FBI’s terrorist watch list can stroll into a gun store without impediment if his or her criminal and mental health records are clean. That’s a rare, perhaps the only, loophole Trump has hinted at a willingness to close.

You may have overlooked that constitutional thingie called "Due Process".
That means that nobody is subject to arbitrary evisceration of their Constitutional Rights.
So you may not agree with my politics, but you can't deprive me of my liberties without taking me to court and proving (to the satisfaction of a judge or jury, and while I'm protected by legal counsel) that I have forfeited my rights by my illegal actions.
People get on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List because of suspicion.   They are there because a governmental agency has deemed them worth of special attention.  If they were found to be guilty of  a crime, they would be arrested.  And Prosecuted.  

Short of that level of confidence, nobody loses their Constitutional Rights. 

Suspicion is an heinious thing, and if you use that as your guide to abbrogating the rights of others ... I think you are a stinker and should not be allowed to exercise your First Amendment Right to Free Speech.
How do you like them apples?

 Atop that tinderbox the President-elect girds to pile what amounts to carte blanche for gun owners registered in states with barely-there licensing hurdles to traipse armed through states with much stricter conditions for carrying firearms in public. Every now and then, a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law; pleas for leniency follow. The possibility of armed tourists and other visitors roaming streets where open- and concealed-carry is now heavily restricted is problematic enough, making cops’ jobs that much harder

Now you're just ranting ... and doing a darned poor job of it, too!
You talk about 'barely-there licensing hurdles', which I assume refers to the criteria to qualify for Concealed Handgun License (CHL) in the individual states.

I agree that we need to define reasonable criteria, but the national trend is that if you're not a convicted felon you haven't lost your Constitutional "Right To Keep And Bear Arms", so most states would issue a permit to a non-felon.   The local laws vary: as an example, some states restrict CHL owners from bearing arms in an environment where liquors are served as their primary income (bars, rather than restaurants)  But other states do not have this restriction, assuming that anyone who is sufficiently responsible to carry a handgun is sufficiently responsible to remain sober while doing so.
But your comments about a " .., a poor, well-meaning tourist gets arrested at an airport for violating the law ..." is very much to the point!
Why should that passerby (someone who has a ticket on a plane from Maine to Texas, but the plane is rerouted through New Jersey and the cops arrest the flier because he has a firearm in his checked luggage) be persecuted because his firearms are legal in Maine and Texas, but not in New Jersey

But that’s not even the main threat national right-to-carry reciprocity, as it’s called, would unleash. Because many states with especially lenient laws, such as Florida and Utah, invite outsiders to obtain their firearms permits, the federal law would as much as demolish New York’s common-sense limits. Live in New York, get a Florida permit — and, via the internet, a gun. 

And now, besides being ill-informed, you're just wrong.
 Buying a gun over the internet is illegal.  just as having a handgun in certain areas is illegal.   You can make contact with someone who owns a gun and wants to sell it over the internet, but the actual transaction must be made through a licensed dealer, who is required to perform a  background check through the National Instant Check System before completing the transfer.  I know, because I sold a pistol to an internet contact last year and it was a legal transfer; like all responsible gun owners, I was aware of the legal requirements and abided by them.

And oh .. by the way?  New York's "Common-sense limits" are neither common nor sensible.  They are anti-constitutional, onerous, disruptive, and contrary to the interests of your average citizen.  You don't agree?  How many OTHER states impose those illegal infringements on their citizens?  How's that "No Guns" thingie working for your citizens who have no defense against the thugs who don't obey the laws?   And don't get me started talking about Chicago, and Maryland, with some of the most restrictive laws and the most unrestricted thugs!

Needless, heartless, pointless: Blood would spill, because the gun manufacturers bought friends in Congress and now in the White House, because no one had the spine to take a stand. 

The Senate must. 

You know, they said the same thing when Florida opened their doors to legal, responsible gun owners to carry a concealed weapon.
What really happened was ... nothing.  Except crime went down, because muggers were aware that their victims might be prepared to defend themselves.
Blood will run?
Hasn't happened yet.    Well, except for the blood of bandits who run unchecked when robbing businesses, and the mild-mannered customer in the corner blows their brains out before they can kill the clerk.  That happens.
It's the new Cost of Doing Business for Bad Guys.
I call that a good thing.

New Jersey: "You do what I say you do!"

NJ holding police depts hostage to push 'smart guns'... - Gunmart Blog

I'm not sure that the mayor of Newark has the power to dictate to Major Firearms Manufacturers.

If the police departments in New Jersey require firearms which are "Dependable", rather than "Politically Acceptable ... aren't the police the people who are putting their lives on the line?

Shouldn't the police, who live or die by the reliability of their firearms, be the people who are defining the specifications for "acceptable weapons"?

Perhaps not:

(Newark Mayor Ras J. Baraka demands:)

Surrounded by clergy and bi-partisan groups on the steps of Newark City Hall Thursday afternoon, Baraka called on all New Jersey mayors to convene before purchasing additional weapons for their law enforcement agencies and create a list of manufacturers who are listening to their concerns, chiefly: safer gun distribution practices and technologies.
"We put our money in places, with people who support what we think is right for our community," Baraka told NJ Advance Media following the press conference. "You're talking about over 560 municipalities in the State of New Jersey. If we can get a quarter of them to say, 'Look, we agree with this, and we're not going to purchase bullets, guns or whatever from these four or five manufactures until (they) do what we ask them to do.'"

Is this guy requiring smart guns?  Or has he made under-the-counter deals with a few manufacturers just for the badda-boom?

Is it all about the money?

Is that what it's all about?  Where the mayor of Newark wants to put his money, determines what quality of firearms are distributed to the police, who need to defend their lives every day?

"You do what I say you do!

Damned if you do, Damned if you don't

In New Jersey, you can't even TALK about guns in a positive light!

Anti-gun-control video project gets H.S. student suspended | NJ.com:

A New Jersey High School student, Frank Harvey, said

  ",,, a Manville High School teacher instructed him to create a video arguing against gun control for a junior college readiness class last year."

He was kicked out of school for performing the task too well.

UPDATE:     See the video that started the whole thing here.
(NOTE:   I couldn't get the video to work; it may have been lifted by now)

Not-so-smart NJ and not-so-smart Smart Guns

You recall how New Jersey had her knickers handed to her when the smarmy law requiring "Smart Guns" to be sold as soon as they had become available? Uh huh. They still have sores from the bite marks under their nickers.  (And the Smart Guns are STILL not all that 'available'!)

Now, New Jersey has has backed WAY off its original arbitrariness.
Not far enough, though.

New Jersey Assembly Approves Bill For More Smart Gun Sales  CBS New York:

 More smart guns would be sold in New Jersey under a measure that cleared the state Assembly Monday. As WCBS 880’s Kelly Waldron reported, the measure would create a roster of so-called smart guns, which can only be fired by authorized users, available for sale. The bill would also require most New Jersey gun retailers to carry a couple of smart guns in their stores.

[H/T: The Gun Feed]

("MORE" Smart Guns?  Have they sold even ONE, yet?)

So far, the "Roster" includes one small .22 caliber pistol, underpowered for any 'practical ' purpose, and it costs an arm and both legs more than most pistols of that genre.

Oh, and it's not all that smart, having failed in a significant number of tests.  Boy, Howdy, that's the pistol *_I_* would want to have in my nightstand to protect my family against a home invasion!

So the wise solons in The Garbage Garden State have declared that all they want to do is to have every gun shop have 'a couple of smart guns in their stores.

Great.
Beat up on the small retailer stores much?   How may other products does this state's legislature mandate that stores carry in stock?   Is it just firearms?

Yes, it is "just firearms".

Thank Goodness for the Second Amendment which ... provides absolutely NO protection for a specialty merchant, as long as the State Legislature is composed of a ignorant sore-losers who don't mind sticking it to their constituents who are just trying to make a living.

Well, those ignorant elected officials are still smarting (no pun intended, but it seemed appropriate) from the public embarassment they sufferred last year and somebody has to pay the price.  Guess who?

This is a valuable product useful for home defence  competition plinking at tin cans absolutely nothing.   And NJ wants every small retailer to carry them in stock ... rather than have them available for 'special order' in the (unlikely) possibility that someone would really like to own one.

Not that the State Assembly wasn't aware of that; this is merely another transparent attempt to run gun stores out of business.  The law serves no other purpose.

You can bet that if a gun store actually had someone ask to buy one of those not-so-smart guns, the retailer could put an order in to the manufacturer and it would be delivered the next business day by the president of the failing company (who probably has a closet full of unsaleable guns in his basement).

The ironic thing is, the good people of New Jersey will probably re-elect the idiots who wrote the original law requiring that only 'Smart Guns' be sold ... when they were both unreliable and unavailable.

No word from NJ on whether the original law, mandating that only Smart Guns be sold in NJ as soon as one became 'available'.   Well, you can't blame them for not wanting to advertise their lunacy any more.

Kalifornia's "Good Cause" ruling odious

On June 9, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange denounced the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for ruling against carrying guns concealed outside the home.

Imagine that ... Alabama standing up to California on Gun Rights.

Actually, the Ninth Circuit Court covers the West Coast plus "others". *

In a way, I wish the Nutty Ninth was populated by some justices who recognize the Supreme Court rulings of Macdonald (overturn municipal gun bands, 2nd Amendment applies to individuals)   and Heller  (right to have guns in home, in immediately usable status) by the Supreme court.

These decisions have been subsequently interpreted to imply that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to BEAR arms .. which means to carry them in public.

It's one thing to defend "State's Rights" in the context of Federal laws; but it's another thing to defend State's Rights when they conflict with a Constitutional Right (eg: The Second Amendment).

I think it's time that the Second Amendment be applied to all states equally, with the most 'liberal' interpretation be applied to all states; full acceptance of CHL licenses in every state, and carry laws standardized to at least CHL owners to carry in every state without fear of persecution.

The Second Amendment is shaping to be the 21st Century's version of the anti-segregation policies of President Eisenhower in the 50's and 60's, and the Abortion policies of more recent years.

Obviously, these are issues which were not considered 'issues' in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, and the "newer" importance of these re-interpretation of Constitutional Rights has led to some confusion about States Right vs the Constitutional Rights.

The clarifying factor may be that the Constitutional Rights have been applied to protect the rights of the individual citizen; States Rights were being (at the time of those controversies) to allow some 'activities' to some Americans, while denying the same rights to other Americans:

"Separate, but Equal"

In the Eisenhower era, the Supreme Court ruled that rights to education, marriage, etc. could not be regulated by State fiats based on race.

"Abortion Rights"

In more recent years (ca 1992), the Supreme Court ruled (see Roe vs Wade, et al) that a woman's right to have an abortion must apply equally to every state, regardless of the state in which state the woman applied for the medical procedure.

Neither of these Supreme Court decisions were universally popular, but they did have the effect of standardizing the Rights of the individual across state lines.  Abortion is a good example; it should not be necessary for a woman to cross state lines to access the same rights which are illegal in her home state, but legal in another state.

"Gun Control"

The Issue De Jure is Gun Control, and we have seen far too many examples of a person travelling between states with a firearm which may be legally carried in one state, but falling afoul of the laws of another state.

She Still Lives!

E.R. Boroughs, in his "John Carter of Mars" series, epitomized the phrase "I STILL LIVE!"

That seems an appropriate tagline for this article.

New Jersey State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored a state law which supposedly required that as soon as a "smart gun" was sold ... it would be the only firearm which would be legally sold in NJ ..... is still around, and is insistent that her bill be the "law of the land"; at least in New Jersey.

That was, we all assumed her (political) death knell.
We were wrong.

She's back.  And she brought at least one ape with her this year.

Two new gun control bills hit Christie's desk | POLITICO:

In 2002, James McGreevey signed a law that would have required all guns sold in New Jersey to be equipped with “smart” technology designed to be fired by just one person, using fingerprint scanners, watches or items things intended to verify the owner. But the law has been criticized as holding up the development of the technology. State Sen. Loretta Weinberg, a Democrat who sponsored that law, has introduced a bill to repeal it — but only if New Jersey gun dealers sell at least one firearm equipped with the technology within three years of it becoming available on the market.

I have a LOT to say about this, but as a personal favor to the four or five folks who actually read this scribbling, I'll resist the urge to drill down for a few thousand words.

However, I will mention that at the time this controversy came to a political head, the ONLY pistol which provided this technological wonder was only available in .22 caliber.  It was only offered by one firearms dealer, and the outrage was so vehement and so widespread that he actually only sold ... none of them.  (Poor guy, I don't know if he's still in business, but he has had his moment in the sun.)

Keep a weather eye out for Loretta Weinberg, though.  She's a crusader, she has a cause, and although I absolutely reject her political stance, I can't help rooting for her to stick to her guns.

uh ... perhaps that was an unfortunate choice of words.
z

NYC: Why should you need a firearm?

Judge nixes New York City gun permit for firearms dealer | Fox News:
(May 24, 2015)

A judge won’t let a traveling firearms dealer carry a concealed weapon in New York City to protect himself and his wares from “criminals and terrorists.” Cavalier Knight applied for a gun permit from the New York City Police Department in 2014. He went to court when the application was denied. He claimed the NYPD violated his Second Amendment rights. But in a decision posted Friday, a judge rejected that claim while upholding New York’s tough gun control law, the New York Daily News reported Saturday.

The judge's decision was based on the premise that it was "pure speculation" that he might be subject to attack, and;

1. why should he be any more at risk than others in his business, who haven't asked for similar 'rights', and;
2. he has been selling guns for years and he has not been attacked yet, so why should he now be concerned?

Am I missing something here?

What is "The Gun Culture"?

My definition of "Gun Culture" is this:

I grew up in a 'gun family'.  My father was an avid hunter all of his life.  His hobby was to take old military rifles (1903-A3) and convert them into modern sporting rifles which were an expression of his art.

He bought me my first deer rifle when I was 13, and I was thrilled to finally get to go hunting with him.  More frequently (because it didn't depend on a 'season') we would go 'varmint hunting'.

And as bloody as it must have seemed to the varmints, it was a much more humane solution than the alternative.  (Of course the hares and the rodents of all kind probably resented our predation.)

I did some hunting of deer and antelope, and the meat which they provided to our dinner was welcome.  Mom was never a good cook, but fresh venison is a welcome supplement to our diet.  I ate Deer, Elk, even Bear meat.

I became involved in competition shooting.  For 15 years I was a Gallery Rifle shooter, both indoors and outdoors.  I spend a few summers working in harvest (both wheat and peas) so that I could buy a Valment "Lion" Free Rifle, with which I won a few junior matches.

In later years, I chose to shoot pistols in competition.  I'm now certified as a "not very good, but determined"  shooter in three divisions of USPSA shooting.

People enjoy shooting.  It's like throwing darts in a pub, only louder, and without the drinking.

Some people are more involved in self-defense shooting.  Nobody wants to hurt anybody else, but sometimes the circumstances are such that one needs to protect Hearth and Home, Self and Family.

But that's not what a lot of people envision when they think of the term: "Gun Culture".

THIS is the image that they see:

BREAKING: Prosecutor in Shaneen Allen Case Asks to Delay Trial, Might Back Off Charges Against Single Mom
From "Guns Save Lives":

The prosecutor in the Shaneen Allen case has asked the judge to delay the trial while he reevaluates the charges against her.

Read more: http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-prosecutor-in-shaneen-allen-case-asks-to-delay-trial-might-back-off-charges-against-single-mom/#ixzz3DFeNaaGE

We're glad to hear that.   Yes, this was a victimless crime.  Except, of course, for Ms Allen who was to be persecuted (not just 'prosecuted') for her honesty, and for her exercise of her 2nd Amendment Rights.

UPDATE: September 24, 2014
A Philadelphia mother facing prison time for bringing her legally registered gun into New Jersey will be allowed into a diversion program, after the attorney general clarified a directive that had expanded New Jersey's gun law.* see the AG memo here *
H/T: Of Arms And The Law

In earlier articles, I had mentioned that it seemed a miscarriage of justice that she be imprisoned for 'crossing a bridge".  Comments on the article seemed "indignantly smug" when declaring that ignorance is, in fact, no excuse.

NJ Paranoia

Saddle Brook man, allegedly stabbed by wife, is arrested on weapons-related charges - News - NorthJersey.com:

(August 08, 2014)

Just canisters of black gunpowder removed earlier were enough to pose a danger to nearby homes, according to Kugler. He said the amount appeared to more than 30 pounds, more than the amount that can be legally stored. “Our goal is to document and remove the gunpowder and render the house safe,” Kugler said. “Certainly the amount that is in there has a potential to be a hazard not only to the house but to the adjacent neighbors as well.” 

(H/Tip:  Bitter)

It's funny, but learning that your neighbor had 30 pounds of black powder stored in his home frightened his neighbors.

But if he had two Cadillacs in his garage with gasoline in their tanks, they wouldn't have thought twice about it.

Which is interesting, which you look at the "Energy Density" of gasoline compared to gun powder. *
According to my figures, if he was storing cars in his garage instead of gunpowder in his basement, his neighbors would have been MUCH more at risk in case of fire.

But people tend to freak out when they learn that gun powder has been stored next door.