With cops in the family, where do you think I stand? Of course background checks make sense...but the guidelines for those background checks are what worry me. What will the basis for exclusion be? Should a former soldier being treated for PTSD, or a person taking medication for depression, for example, have unfettered access to automatic weapons? Absurd. By the same token, however, should a government be able to decide who can and can't own a firearm based on, say, "political affiliation"? Religious Conviction? Race?

Mental Health, maybe...otherwise, I will defer to the laws as written.

Common sense has to rule.

For shooting sports, (target and hunting), magazine limits are part of the law already - shotguns may hold no more than three rounds - and, if you know the old-fashioned way to accomplish that, non-gun folks would be stunned, wouldn't they? (hint - it involves a sawed-off piece of broom handle)

I don't hunt. I do target shoot, and quite well, thank you very much. My son shoots trap and skeet, and is scoring the State Shoot next week (he was at Shamong this past Saturday). My father-in-law is a many-time champion with shotgun and 1911 colt. The man's a machine. My oldest daughter (taught by her granddad) had fun in police explorers embarrassing the recruits...the girl can shoot.

My other children have little interest, less so in archery, and more's the pity, because my nickname as an instructor for the scouts is "The Arrow Whisperer"...yes, it was vain to say so, but if you done it, it ain't braggin'...A lot of young men passed that badge after a few minutes coaching. Archery is about form and repetition.

Again, not everyone is Ted Nugent. We don't let just anyone drive, either. Frank Fiamingo at NJ2AS and I differ greatly on several issues - he wants open carry, with very little control. We do both agree that Safety in the use of firearms comes from competence, intelligence, and common sense...in short - education. We met together earlier this spring to discuss possible promotion of home security classes - to include lighting, locks, and other means of securing a home, besides an AR-15.

Several of our candidates shoot - some do not. None would qualify as the stereotype so often pointed at.

Not everyone should own a firearm. The Second Amendment Language is very clear, but so is the commerce clause, which means States have a right to regulate.

I frankly find the magazine limitation as applied to tube-fed 22s a bit silly, on it's face, but the premise is a dangerous one, if that bill is not ever-so-carefully crafted...the present language leaves a lot to interpretation, but, as I don't sit in the Assembly or NJ Senate, my opinion only counts as much as yours does...who did you vote for?

I spoke with the folks at Henry Repeating Arms in Bayonne, (yup - they're made here, and I own one), and the up-fit was described to me as follows..."We've had a modified tube for your rifle since New York passed similar legislation. With your level of competence, it will take less than 10-15 minutes to correctly swap out the old tube for the new. They're 29 dollars plus shipping". I haven't done it, yet...but that's because I decided to see if I could make a restrictor-plug that would attach to the existing spring - limiting the magazine by modifying the 'innards', leaving the factory tube intact. I'll wait to do that, though, until I can toy with the longer tube, off the rifle.

In other words, it's really a small inconvenience to be compliant on that particular rifle. Others makes and models have similar fixes and are similarly easy to D-I-Y.

When my children were little, there were no guns allowed in my home. I don't feel the need to have one in the house for "protection", even as things are changing in small-town Delanco.

Most of what I own holds nowhere near the new magazine limit. That is partly because the other stuff is pretty heavy...I spend a lot of time in the woods in Maine, and you're not the top of the food chain up there. The only thing a 22 is good for there is to shoot the guy you're with in the ankle so you can run away faster than he can. (That's a joke, folks...a joke.) I hope to never fire the one I carry in the woods to defend myself, but a 444 Marlin makes a pretty strong statement. (although at about 4 bucks a trigger pull, it doesn't speak often, anymore).

I shoot levers, because it's what I grew up with. My hands were crippled due to a neck injury (drunk driver), so I no longer shoot pistol. In fact, I probably now shoot less than 200 rounds a year. I just don't have the time or inclination, anymore. I would never take that away from another, though. To learn to

competently handle a firearm is a very 'zen' activity...it requires a level of focus and concentration that some find tying flies, or grafting roses. It's a sport, to me - nothing more.

So - in summary - In Montana, I would be a wuss, because I believe that the local cops should have an idea of what they're walking in on - largely because I prefer, as they do, that they take every advantage to go home at the end of their shift.

In Tax-a-Chussetts, I'm an extremist, because I own large bore lever guns and shoot long distances.

I don't believe that the Second Amendment does anything more than what it actually says...and it's a complex sentence, easily interpreted if you diagram it. (remember diagramming sentences?). The independent clause is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear language...remember, though, that the Constitution also conveys certain powers on the States. Among those is the right to regulate commerce, and, if you've been to Cheyenne Mountain or Dick's, recently, you may have noticed that ammo has gotten quite expensive - certainly ammunition sales are "commerce" - so are firearms sales. That is why there has never been a successful challenge to States having the right to license firearm ownership.

Do I think magazine limits matter? Slippery slope, here - what would you define as "reasonable", and, once YOU have defined it, would all your neighbors agree?

Never had a target fire back at me - and it would be improper for me to set the standard for what YOU define as 'safe" - IN YOUR OWN HOME.

If you want to own a gun, NJ has a process. Follow the law.