Leaderboard

Thank you to all the fallen, "This is the day we pay homage to all those who didn't come home”

Although I get your (understandably!) cynical point of view... it's also hard to ignore that there's one very serious difference between "then" and "now". Even if ALL these various cases move glacially, as you say, through the courts - as so many NJ gun cases have done in the past - in the meantime, law-abiding NJ citizens are at least carrying concealed. Frankly?... I never thought I'd see that day. Did you? I think this latest chapter - this decision by Judge Bumb - is yet another "win" no matter how you slice it. And the fact that this judge took so much time and turned out such a lengthy and carefully annotated product... makes me think that she KNEW damn well this case would be immediately appealed, and that it would be closely watched by other courts around the country, and she was making sure to dot the i's and cross the t's on this initial decision... so that it would withstand any future appeal process. I think she's going to be JUST as careful when the full case is heard and decided. And yes, the fact that Alito is over that next level court... if these combined cases ever get to that point, well, from my (albeit limited) understanding, it certainly doesn't hurt us! For years, pro-2A NJ citizens had NOTHING but bad legislation and even worse legal decisions to despair over. But the fact is... the Bruin case DID change things. It gave much-needed "teeth" to the pro-2A side... in the form of clear, compelling guidance on what courts need to do to decide 2A cases... and now we're seeing a series of wins as a direct result. You know, it's ok to crack a smile... perhaps even lift a celebratory glass... at each step we win.

Memorial day is a day of reflection and remembrance of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I am reminded of the words of General George S. Patton who said: It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.

They were labelled "cop killer bullets". It was recycling the same con that the politicians have been using for decades. Create a scary boogeyman that the lazy, uninformed voter will take on face value. Present yourself as the savior that will slay the boogeyman. Get voted in again. Rinse, repeat. They have done it over and over again and the dumb voters keep buying it. Covid, ebola, Trump, China, the Russians, global warming, ozone layer, acid rain, commies, gun owners, AR-15s, murder hornets, etc. You get the idea.

I think it’s more like the laws are written by nitwits that don’t know how bullets work and someone decided HPs were scary

I'm going to make a distinction that's not related to this thread topic in particular, but laws in general. Laws prohibit behavior, but don't prevent anything. They don't and can't stop anyone from doing anything. Laws prescribe punishment for the prohibited behavior, if someone is caught. So all laws do is raise the stakes for those who wish to engage in a specific prohibited activity. And if someone is basically oblivious to punishment, laws stop nothing. In the end, what does and doesn't happen is totally dependent on the mindset of individuals.

How dare you use critical thinking skills and logic! You should be drawing conclusions from incomplete information and making sweeping declarative statements about an incident you were not involved in and didn’t witness! Is this your first day on the internet? Don't you know how this works?

As someone approved by NJSP to run RPO qualifications, I can say with certainty that is not the course of fire for RPO. HQC1 or HQC2 plus HNQC are the required CoF for RPO.

Hey, folks... I know our Governor doesn't get a lot of respect around here (quite understandably), but please watch what you post. Thx!

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-clarifies-that-its-injunction-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-covers-fpc-s-members Become a member: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ Just enter your email address and Zip code in the middle of the page. You do NOT need to click Join and donate at the top left - however it is very much recommended!

I suspect this guy is not a concealed carry permit holder; if he was Papa Smurphy would have had all media outlets carpet bombing the state with alarmist nonsense about the dangers posed by legal gun owners.

No, they didn't.

One can go through posts a year ago and find many saying we'll never be able to carry in NJ.

@Ed471 Make sure you call the PA FFL and make sure they will accept it that way. Some FFLs will only accept a firearm to transfer if its sent to them from an FFL - this as a matter of their store policy, not law. I’d hate for you to take the ride out there and they tell you they won’t accept it from a private seller.

The NJ press is reporting a road rage shooting in Somerset County. Links: https://newjersey.news12.com/road-rage-incident-over-lane-change-leads-to-attempted-murder-charge-for-somerset-man https://www.nj.com/somerset/2023/05/road-raging-nj-driver-fired-2-shots-at-car-while-trying-to-merge-cops-say.html If the facts are as is being reported...God, I pray that this guy is NOT a concealed carry permit holder. But because the charges do not include the whole laundry list that usually applies to an illegally possessed gun, I'm a little worried.

OK, I'm in. I'll bring a trap, clays and guns available for loan, 12g & 20g. I'll probably toss the EZ-up in as well for some shade.

Here's a thought - the State undermines itself in its arguments. Chapter 131 creates a vastly expanded enumerated list of so-called sensitive locations. The State attempts to justify many of these as locations where particularly vulnerable people assemble. The State fails to explain in what way these people are especially vulnerable. It may be presumed that they are vulnerable because they are less able to defend themselves from violent attack because they are children, mentally infirm, or substance abuse addicts. The State appears to presume that because these categories of people assemble in the defined locations for a specific reason (education, sports events, treatment, etc.) that they are the only people in those locations. This is clearly untrue as children do not educate themselves, referee their own sports matches, nor do the infirm treat their own ailments. There are always responsible, law-abiding adults also present to oversee and run the events at these locations as well as spectate at spots events. Indeed, officials at these events are required to submit to a State background check before engaging in running such events. Even children at playgrounds are required to be supervised by a responsible adult. The State’s blanket ban on firearms prevents these responsible adults from acting in defense of the vulnerable people present. It should also be noted that children, the mentally infirm and substance addicts are categorically prohibited from obtaining permits to carry handguns. Chapter 131 also extends the categories of people associated with law enforcement who are exempt from the prohibition of carrying a firearm for the purpose of self-defense in the multitude of sensitive locations. The State argues that these categories of people are at a heightened risk of attack from vengeful criminals. This is unproven, but may be so, but the State saying that they to need to be equipped to defend themselves in the enumerated sensitive locations, is also the State is admitting that regardless of the law prohibiting ordinary people possessing firearms in these locations, there is still a risk that self-defense from a violent attack will be necessary. This is a clear admission that prohibiting firearms from sensitive locations does not eliminate bad actors from committing violent attacks in those places. In contrast, the sensitive locations acknowledged in the Bruen opinion have active measures to ensure the prohibition is observed – metal detectors, armed law enforcement personnel, etc. The vast majority of the new sensitive locations do not have such measures and are a prohibition on paper only. It is very easy to understand how a bad actor ignores the prohibition. Even if an attacker has a particular person as a target, such as one of the newly enumerated exempt people in Chapter 131, it is usual for there to be indiscriminate gunfire from the bad actor. One only needs to look at the number of innocent bystanders injured or killed in the violence perpetrated in our cities to see this is true. Ordinary, law-abiding adults in these sensitive locations have a tangible need for self-defense, no less than the people associated with law enforcement. If the State wishes to persevere with the notion that prohibiting vetted, law-abiding adults from possessing firearms in sensitive locations is effective, they must also admit that it is unnecessary for the newly enumerated associates of law enforcement to be exempt from that prohibition.

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-regarding-membership https://www.firearmspolicy.org/join

State roads are owned by the state. County roads are owned by the county. Regarding roads and private property rights - there are 2 different types of people: invitees and licensee. A licensee is someone who has explicit permission. An invitee has implied permission. For example a Burger King - nobody has to tell you that you have permission to enter. It's implied permission and considered the default rule. The state attempted to change the default rule that says if there is not explicit permission that you're not allowed. Judge Bumb saw through that and struck it down as it would be a flat out ban on carry. This applies to roads as well.

Joined. Even if this does not work for the brace, I donated to a good org.

Applied An hour ago for Pike County - got an email 20 minutes ago saying "Schedule an appt" - scheduled for Wednesday to pickup.

Edited with 5/16/2023 Preliminary Injunction information. https://www.anjrpc.org/page/LegalAnalysisOfRecentCarryDecision

That's what she said.

Sometime your local government works…got a call from my PD records department today. I have an early permit that came with Morris County judge’s court order, specific gun and carry the order. Our police chief would like to reissued my permit with no restrictions, just fill out the application again, two new photos and the consent for Mental Health check, no fingerprints, and drop it off…but wait…I asked what will this cost me…..no charge!!!! Sometimes you can’t make this up…..i jokingly asked if there was a lamination fee?

She didn't say that at all - she said she flags the possibility that shall issue statutory laws because permitting schemes can be put towards abusive ends. She also put the burden on the state government to come forth with the historical tradition of gun regulations that justify putting restrictions on our right to carry. This is HUGE. The Shall Issue Permitting laws need to be looked at in a case-by-case basis. That puts it out there that NJ's requirements are potentially unconstitutional. While we have some unclassified an restrictive policies put on us to obtain our CCW - it could be worse - look at NY. Bumb is specifically putting out her opinion on this to prevent that from happening here in NJ... And potentially making it even easier for us. It's just going to take time. Keep the faith. Yes - ranges are using this as an economic windfall - good for them. Capitalism. It's up to you to find alternative methods on how to get qualified.

Someone else is making those decisions for the Commander in Sleep. Joe doesn’t have an earthly clue.

If you've got an hour to spare... here's the far more detailed breakdown of this decision (the follow-up video to the shorter Four Boxes Diner video posted about 8 msgs upthread by @Krdshrk): BREAKING 2A WIN: FULL (GEEK) ANALYSIS OF JUDGE BUMB'S SPANKING OF NEW JERSEY IN CONCEAL CARRY CASE - YouTube So far, of all the YouTube channels on 2A issues, this guy is my favorite for legal analysis. He's very thorough - seems to have a great grasp of the issues. Look up his bio - pretty impressive!

I don't know why this keeps getting thrown out like it means something. Alito isn't going to show up in Philly and say "We really meant it when Bruen was written" and "poof", like magic, all the same courts that ignored Heller for years are going to say "My bad" and start following SCOTUS. When the 3rd slow walks things like the 2nd did (after removing the TRO), the same thing will happen - SCOTUS will write a sternly worded letter, and things will move at a slightly faster glacial pace. I don't know about the rest of you think, but didn't that mention by SCOTUS really speed things up in the 3rd? 2 months since oral argument, is there an over-under on how long they sit on ruling it? And during this wait, _nothing_ is going on in district court for these cases.

It's all in how you phrase it. Cats rule. Medieval truth. For our Texas brothers and sisters. And think about this one for at least a minute.

Maybe I'm being dense. I honestly can't tell if this is a joke... if it's a joke, then "ha-ha, ya got me good!" If it's NOT a joke... let me give you a woman's perspective: while you hustled on those two jobs to support your family (and all due credit to you, good sir... sounds like you were a great provider)... I notice you neglected to mention that you also paid for a nanny...or a housekeeper? If that wasn't by accident, may I assume that it was your wife who bore the brunt of domestic bliss like: wiping snotty noses? waking up at midnight to soothe a feverish child? changing disgusting, dirty diapers? running kids back and forth to dr's app'ts & after-school events? fixing them an after-school snack and going over their homework? doing the family laundry? cooking family meals? cleaning up after those meals? packing school lunches? cleaning the house? etc., etc. If so, oh, she worked alright! She just didn't work "outside the home". And if your 3 kids are already through college, then I presume you've been married 25+ years? And you think it might be a good idea to just drop THIS on her: "Hey, I've decided to split the money into separate accounts..."??? Oh, goodness... you might want to slow your roll and think that through! Because I can just about guarantee you, that plan will be the equivalent of taking a hatchet to the family you so carefully built over the decades. Don't get me wrong... I can absolutely see the wisdom of pre-nups, separate + joint accounts, etc. for that new couple (young or old) who doesn't have the history and built-up trust of an established couple. But if you start proposing money changes NOW... at this late stage of your marriage?... I can promise you, she's going to think you've met someone else and you're planning to leave her high and dry. She'll likely be distraught AND suspicious... your kids will undoubtedly catch wind of it... and THEY will be suspicious of you, too (logically, since you're the one proposing the change). Everything you've built - or should I say, the IMPORTANT things - like the respect and goodwill your wife and kids hold for you - POOF! Gone in an instant. For what? If you have tangible, solid, proven reasons to distrust her, that's ONE thing... but to wreck your presumably decent family relations FOR NO GOOD REASON because of what someone wrote on a gun forum... OH, PLEASE TELL ME YOU WERE JOKING!

Excellent. In hindsight we didn't really need a prenuptial agreement. And over the years we have in fact had lopsided 'joint' expenditures that one of us chose to pay more for because we wanted to and could. I think that's called 'teamwork'. From my perspective, the primary reason we did a prenup was: For Her - She'd had been married once and got screwed in the divorce. Basically walked away with a few thousand she came in with, and a '66 Chevelle with a three-speed on the column, no A/C and manual brakes. Wow! Thanks for the 10 year ride! I definitely did not want her to get 'screwed' again if by chance something happened to my personality that was beyond my imagination. For Me - I finally concluded that if my real intentions were as big as my mouth, I shouldn't have any problem putting it in writing and signing on the dotted line. Plus it was good exercise to compose my thoughts on paper. In other words: trust, but verify. I think tomorrow I'll have a summary of our prenup. And another short story.

Just be his friend. Most likely, that’s what he needs most. There is nothing magic you can say that will ease his pain. Being his friend is the best you can do. Make time in your life to include him.