ogfarmer 138 Posted January 17, 2014 Good http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S0500/251_I1.HTM STATEMENT Current law provides that a person lawfully transporting a firearm or weapon in a motor vehicle may deviate from the course of travel only to the extent reasonably necessary under the circumstances. This bill clarifies the type of situations that could constitute reasonably necessary deviations. The bill provides that reasonably necessary deviations are to include, but not be limited to, collecting and discharging passengers; purchasing fuel, food and beverages, medicine or other supplies; use of a restroom; or contending with an emergency situation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexTheSane 236 Posted January 17, 2014 Stopping for food?!?! Picking up people to go to the range?!?!? What kind of lunacy is this?!?!?! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Teky0101 6 Posted January 17, 2014 This seems like a good law! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dwamp2006 1 Posted January 17, 2014 Time to start writing and show support! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
deerpark 83 Posted January 17, 2014 Wait, something's wrong, this Bill actually makes sense... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted January 17, 2014 This one could backfire on us, as the current law permits some wiggle room, while this would eliminate it by specifically defining what stops are permissible. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
boo 6 Posted January 17, 2014 The bill provides that reasonably necessary deviations are to include, but not be limited to, collecting and discharging passengers; purchasing fuel, food and beverages, medicine or other supplies; use of a restroom; or contending with an emergency situation. as long as the "but not limited to" language stays, I would think it allows for flexibility. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYMetsFan86 9 Posted January 17, 2014 wait...something positive? i can't believe my eye. I may be able to stop for tacos on the way back without worrying about jail time soon! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted January 17, 2014 Good http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S0500/251_I1.HTM STATEMENT Current law provides that a person lawfully transporting a firearm or weapon in a motor vehicle may deviate from the course of travel only to the extent reasonably necessary under the circumstances. This bill clarifies the type of situations that could constitute reasonably necessary deviations. The bill provides that reasonably necessary deviations are to include, but not be limited to, collecting and discharging passengers; purchasing fuel, food and beverages, medicine or other supplies; use of a restroom; or contending with an emergency situation. So I don't have to wear a diaper next time I go to the range? Push my car when i run out of gas? Don't have to drive 144 miles to pick up a friend who lives 3 miles from the range? I PROTEST! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RecessedFilter 222 Posted January 17, 2014 So many people go overboard with these laws, especially this one. If you have to take a shit or stop to pick up a friend, so be it, whether or not SB521 says so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pythagoras 2 Posted January 17, 2014 If you actually read the bill, it is patently good for us. The "including" gives us a bare minimum that we KNOW is protected by law, and the "but not limited to" keeps wiggle room for other reasons that the judge thinks is reasonable. (We all know judge discretion about guns is mostly a joke in this state, but now that Fuzzy has been sworn in, maybe it's not as much of a joke as it used to be.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted January 17, 2014 If you actually read the bill, it is patently good for us. The "including" gives us a bare minimum that we KNOW is protected by law, and the "but not limited to" keeps wiggle room for other reasons that the judge thinks is reasonable. (We all know judge discretion about guns is mostly a joke in this state, but now that Fuzzy has been sworn in, maybe it's not as much of a joke as it used to be.) My bad, as I must confess to not having read the entire bill. That additional clause makes a world of difference. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NEAHS 11 Posted January 18, 2014 This will be one of the first bills shot down in committee or voted no on regular vote! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pythagoras 2 Posted January 18, 2014 No disrespect intended, Old Glock! Not trying to give you lip, just pointing it out. Jeff Van Drew usually does right by us. He's the guy who perpetually sponsors the bill to legalize the Marlin Model 60. Maybe someday..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,137 Posted January 18, 2014 this revision was introduced last Spring, not new. Lets hope they dont knock it down again like last time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted January 22, 2014 So many people go overboard with these laws, especially this one. If you have to take a shit or stop to pick up a friend, so be it, whether or not SB521 says so. I argue similarly on many of these legal points. However, the consequences of getting snagged are so horrendous, and there's no mercy. Think about it. With LE's current surveillance ability, I would not put anything past them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arizona 0 Posted January 23, 2014 There should be no restrictions on travel, period. Gimme a break. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted January 24, 2014 Van drew's bill which made it out of committee last year but was buried by Sweeney and never brought to a vote. I still don't know how they even get away with breaking the rules so blatantly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buns of Guns 7 Posted February 4, 2014 I wish they would add "Heading Out of State" as an exempted location. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted March 20, 2014 What was the final wording of this bill? Was the wording changed from "means" to "includes" or "includes, but is not limited to"? Where is the bill's status? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted March 20, 2014 Good http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/S0500/251_I1.HTM STATEMENT Current law provides that a person lawfully transporting a firearm or weapon in a motor vehicle may deviate from the course of travel only to the extent reasonably necessary under the circumstances. This bill clarifies the type of situations that could constitute reasonably necessary deviations. The bill provides that reasonably necessary deviations are to include, but not be limited to, collecting and discharging passengers; purchasing fuel, food and beverages, medicine or other supplies; use of a restroom; or contending with an emergency situation. Much, Much better. But I still don't think we should give up 15rnds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted March 20, 2014 Much, Much better. But I still don't think we should give up 15rnds. You're not answering the question. That original wording was as it stood on Jan 17 of this year. Later on, the Democrats made a "deal" with themselves that replaced "are to include, but not be limited to," with "means." In other words, those are the ONLY things you can do. No judicial discretion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HBecwithFn7 296 Posted March 20, 2014 You're not answering the question. That original wording was as it stood on Jan 17 of this year. Later on, the Democrats made a "deal" with themselves that replaced "are to include, but not be limited to," with "means." In other words, those are the ONLY things you can do. No judicial discretion. The original wording of S251? I understand that A2777 was changed. I have to hope that A2777, along with A2006 is vetoed by CC. I wouldn't mind it if S251 passed. And, perhaps, it might, if CC vetoes A2777. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted March 20, 2014 The original wording of S251? I understand that A2777 was changed. I have to hope that A2777, along with A2006 is vetoed by CC. I wouldn't mind it if S251 passed. And, perhaps, it might, if CC vetoes A2777. Yeah, I kind of agree with you. I don't understand why ANJRPC went bat-shit over this. As it stands that law, which I believe passed today, definitely is an improvement, even though it doesn't go as far as we'd like. Under the old law judges had unlimited discretion over what was "reasonable" or, let's face it, UNREASONABLE because nothing was defined. I'm not crazy with who you can pick up or discharge (a licensed gun dealer??? WTF??), but it is nice to know that at least we can stop for gas or to take a crap. We're still unable to stop for pancakes, however, because we're children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted March 20, 2014 A2777 as passed contains no provisions for food or beverages - http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2014/Bills/A3000/2777_I1.PDF For the purposes of this section, “deviations as are reasonably necessary” means collecting and discharging passengers whose transportation is permitted under paragraph (2) of subsection b., subsection e., or paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection f. of this section, purchasing fuel, using a restroom, and contending with an emergency situation. A person transporting a weapon pursuant to this subsection shall comply with all other applicable State laws relating to weapons. They don't care if you f'in starve. No definition of 'emergency.' The direct implication is that anything else is a criminal act, whereas before there could be judicial interpretation of 'reasonable.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,127 Posted March 20, 2014 Yes, and that's supposedly what they "gave" us in exchange for the ten round mag limit. Hey, thanks a lot a-holes! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
revenger 473 Posted March 20, 2014 I just got done reading the second amendment for the gazillionith time and I just can't seem to find any of these permissible deviations? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
oneshot 45 Posted March 20, 2014 Oh boy thats great!! This way we wont feel so bad when they shove right up are aholes as they take away the right to keep any firearms. I dont buy it. Its all or nothing . Confiscation is coming mark my words. I'm not going to cheer because the scum in Trenton threw a couple of table scraps on the dirty floor for us lap up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AVB-AMG 530 Posted March 27, 2015 Yeah, I kind of agree with you. I don't understand why ANJRPC went bat-shit over this. As it stands that law, which I believe passed today, definitely is an improvement, even though it doesn't go as far as we'd like. Under the old law judges had unlimited discretion over what was "reasonable" or, let's face it, UNREASONABLE because nothing was defined. I'm not crazy with who you can pick up or discharge (a licensed gun dealer??? WTF??), but it is nice to know that at least we can stop for gas or to take a crap. We're still unable to stop for pancakes, however, because we're children. I think this bill is a small step in the right direction, but still omits a number of basic tasks that most of us would consider normal. As Newtonian articulates, stopping for food is still not allowed. So if I want to get up early on a Sat. or Sun. morning to go to the range to practice, before the crowds appear later on, I still cannot stop at a local diner for breakfast, if I have a firearm properly stored in the back of my vehicle. It does not make any sense and is a real inconvenience, but if I were to do that, I would be breaking the law. While the chances of getting caught doing something like this are low, the concern is for that small chance of the unpredictable event happening, i.e. your parked vehicle getting struck by someone elses vehicle while you are ordering your eggs and bacon, or some other highly unlikely but still possible event. Oh well..... I guess I will have to enjoy breakfast at home before going to the range. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites