Grima Squeakersen
-
Content Count
1,244 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2 -
Feedback
N/A
Posts posted by Grima Squeakersen
-
-
A buddy of mine is trying to get his NJ PtC, and he is having a very difficult time of it. He seems to be getting conflicting instructions from multiple (some of them "official") sources. I began doing some research to try to help him, and I ran into obviously bogus information almost immediately, in the form of application instructions still up on the NJSP site that discuss submitting the (old) PAPER form to local PD or NJSP station. NJSP has had conflicting info on their site from day one; I recall finding quite a bit when I was applying in 2022. I did try to make a pass through the online process using bogus information, so that I could do screen captures that might help him out, but I can only get part of the way through before I get an error (no fingerprint record found) on the SBI number I provided (I have no intention of using my real SBI and giving some hotshot in Callahan's or Platkin's office an opportunity to accuse me of some kind of fraud for submitting a falsified application, small risk though others here might think that to be). Does anyone have a pointer or link to a current, verified accurate, guide to completing the application process that I could share with him? Thanks.
GS
-
On 2/16/2024 at 8:30 AM, Old Glock guy said:I believe this is correct, with the caveat that if it's a BYO, you can't consume any alcohol.
Last time I actually tried to read the statute, there was a prohibition on carrying where alcohol is served, and a separate prohibition on carrying while impaired (might have used the word "inebriated", not "impaired"). Are you saying that there is also now a distinct prohibition on taking even one sip of alcohol, (at a BYOB or anywhere else)? Granted, since some judge might rule that the standard for impairment while carrying <> the standard in use for driving, that sip might be an unnecessary risk.
-
56 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:CCW police response in Walmart, Kearney NJ.
I went to Walmart today, Tuesday, around 8pm to pick up some baby formula. I'm just looking around the place and i see an older black man and his wife with a cart and i see he has a pistol in holster on his hip. I look and I'm thinking ah nice he's probably ex detective or proud CCW holder. Thought nothing else of it and kept on. Purchased my stuff and as im heading to the door i see about 3 Emergency Response officers with seemed like managers, then saw a couple other officers with shields then another couple officers with AR's coming in. I overheard one of them tell the receipt checker at the door close the doors no one else in or out till we tell you. I was d last one out. I was looking back inside after i was out the doors, and sure enough, the officers were surrounding the old couple and the wife was yelling at the officers, "WTF HE HAS A CCW PERMIT WTF ARE YOU ALL DOING", all the while they were grabbing the older guys gun and subduing him. SMH, some ignorant asshole prob called the cops on this older black gentleman just cuz he had a pistol on his hip minding his own while shopping.
Remember this one........I dunno.
Seems like massive overkill, but it also seems like he should have done a better job of concealment. I'm pretty sure the current NJ law allows for "inadvertant disclosure" or some similar phrase, but your description makes it sound like it was right out in the open. And who knows how whoever called it in characterized it? Did that person call 911 and say something like "Oh my God!!! I'm shopping in Walmart and there is a threatening looking black guy here brandishing a handgun at everyone!!!" or words to that effect? Also, are you certain he was not a cop or someone else entitled to carry openly? If someone in the store called 911, unless the arriving cops knew the guy personally, they would need to ascertain that, and they aren't going to do that without first taking precautions. I carry in Walmart, but I make damned sure my gun will remain completely concealed even when I do something like bend down to grab a big flat of bottled water off the floor.
-
On 2/11/2024 at 9:47 AM, maintenanceguy said:I will probably not disclose unless it's a situation where disclosure is required. Concealed means concealed and why created problems?
The rule is you must disclose if you are stopped or detained.
2C:58-4.4
b. The holder of a permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-4, if stopped or detained by a law enforcement officer while carrying a handgun in public or traveling with a handgun in a motor vehicle, shall:
(1) immediately disclose to the law enforcement officer that they are carrying a handgun or that a handgun is stored in the vehicle; and
(2) display the permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-4.
A violation of paragraph (1) of this section shall be a crime of the fourth degree. A person who violates paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be guilty of a disorderly persons offense for a first offense and subject to a $100 fine and a crime of the fourth degree for a second or subsequent offense.
c. A holder of a permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to N.J.S.2C:58-4 who is carrying a handgun in public and is detained by a law enforcement officer as part of a criminal investigation shall provide the handgun to the law enforcement officer upon request for purposes of inspecting the handgun. The provisions of this subsection shall not be construed to affect or otherwise limit the authority of a law enforcement officer to conduct a lawful search or seizure.
A violation of this subsection shall be a crime of the fourth degree.
I don't disagree, but is there a current, binding legal definition of the terms "stopped and detained" that would unambiguously apply in all situations in NJ? Such as "stopped" meaning pulled over while driving, and/or "detained" requiring the LEO to inform you that he has detained you, in exactly those words? Otherwise, I can see a strong probability that some NJ PtC holder will ultimately need to establish those definitions through his defense attorney...
-
On 1/30/2024 at 12:18 PM, CMJeepster said:That list has restaurants (unqualified) and bars listed as prohibited:
"NO 7(a)(15): Restaurant or bar"
I'm pretty sure the prohibition is on places that serve alcohol, and there are quite a few restaurants that do not. I have been carrying in those restaurants and will continue to do so until I receive authoritative guidance that it is prohibited.
-
1
-
-
On 2/12/2024 at 10:54 AM, FDHog said:Eventually, I love it! They've been great in the past with P2P. 14 days. Filed my CCW 4 days before I received my recent P2P's. You'd think the background check would be redundant. 4 weeks so far.
There has been a tremendous amount of foot-dragging for issuing individual NJ PtC ever since it was forced down Murphy's and Callahan's throats. In the case of NJSP jurisdictions, it is clearly intentional. For local PD, YMMV...
-
On 1/31/2024 at 12:15 PM, xXxplosive said:Most stores if asked would rather have the theft / shoplifters than honest, upstanding folks..........omo.
For chains, you are probably correct. But I'd bet there are a lot of sole proprietors that would dispute your contention.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 7:13 PM, b47356 said:How can you call it a "private sale" when it has to go through an FFL?
You are correct. Guess I've been in this damned state for too long, I must be getting brainwashed.
-
On 2/1/2024 at 5:31 PM, GRIZ said:You are seriously misunderstanding me. I'm far from a Constitution of Convenience person. I don't have an idea how you arrived at that possibility. I might believe more in the COTUS than you seem to think you do. Paraphrasing Scalia said the COTUS says a lot of things. Scalia also said there are a lot of things the COTUS doesn't say.
Out and out authoritarian? What did I say to make you come to that conclusion?
The first paragraph in my post is a fact. A fact that is written into.the COTUS. Do you believe in that process?
You mention judicial review in another post in this thread? That is written into the COTUS also. Do you believe in that? Yes, many times courts rule in a manner I don't care for but I'm a big boy and learn to live with it or find a way around it. I'm not going to go around whining. That accomplishes nothing.
There are many laws that one might say are "contrary" to the COTUS. But they've passed judicial review and they are the law of the land.
This law restricting the sale of LC ammunition is going nowhere. I mentioned earlier in this thread it is only a bill and really doesn't stand much of a chance of passing. Concern yourself more with the border.being shut down. All this would take is a EO by Biden he could do in a few minutes.
You wrote 'Laws do "infringe" on Constitutional Rights at times for good reason.' (bolding is mine for emphasis). That seemed pretty clear to me when I read it. If taking that at what I thought was face value was a misinterpretation of your position, I'm happy to apologize. I am a Contitutional absolutist in a sense. It was not perfect, but it was (and is) a pretty damned good effort at guaranteeing individual liberty. It was set up with a clear procedure to change it that was deliberately made quite difficult. I regard any law or regulation that contradicts or contravenes it that has not fuliflled that procedure to be completely illegal and invalid. If I comply with any of those illegal and invalid laws or regulations, I do so only because I don't regard open defiance as a practical alternative, at the present time.
-
8 hours ago, CMJeepster said:Moot point here in Jersey.
Private gun sales are banned here, even with the intercession of an FFL? I have sold a couple, fairly recently, but I used an on-line firearms marketplace that is also an FFL, because they made what I thought was a reasonable offer, and I figured it would save me some red tape.
-
2 hours ago, Jon K said:Would leave a link but not sure if allowed, but its on Epoch Times, whistleblowers, blowing.....
Another link: ATF preparing to regulate private gun sales with background check, whistleblower group alleges - Just The News
and here is a link to the Empower Oversight FOIA request for any official records pertaining to this ban:
-
On 1/26/2024 at 11:58 PM, GRIZ said:Okay, a bill in Congress is a proposal. Nothing else. One can introduce a bill to suspend the COTUS. A bill.is meaningless until it is passed by both houses and signed by POTUS. Then it is a law. Then it means something.
If a law were passed forbidding Lake City ammo production to civilians (and it won't be for the time being) that does not infringe on your 2A rights. You still can get 5.56 elsewhere.
Laws do "infringe" on Constitutional Rights at times for good reason.
Are you one otf the "Constitution of Convenience" people? The ones who cite the Constitution when it supports their preferred position, but stand ready to abondon it the first moment it does not? Or perhaps you are just an out-and-out authoritarian who regards power as justification in its own right, and the Constitution nothing but an historical curiosity?
-
On 1/19/2024 at 5:27 PM, Bklynracer said:it says they didn’t get a raise in 24 years.
They also stated that “the job is a demanding one even though it’s considered part-time”
The increases will cost state taxpayers $3.1 million in 2024 and 2025 and then $9.6 million in 2026 and $12.4 million in 2027.
They voted to give themselves a raise, Don’t they work for us?
Voted last week to give the pay bumps to themselves and the other officials despite objections from some, but not all, RepublicansI have an alternative suggestion. Limit their hours to 100 annually and freeze their salaries at the current rate That would make their pay nearly $500/hr, which should be more than sufficient. That would also give them much less time to try to stomp out what few liberties we have left here (although, considering their amply demostrated talent for it, I'm sure they will continue to make some progress in that direction).
-
19 hours ago, brucin said:No I imagine they charge a fee that is the bare minimum and then expect to collect a market average for their services from the losing party..
Here is a news story that says the attorneys only got 1/3 of what they were owed. The donations will most likely make up the other 2'3.
That would explain the orgs soliciting additional donations. It does not explain to me with any degree of persuasion why those orgs would completely decline pursue what appears to be (so far as such a thing exists in the legal world) a straight line solution to making the gun control perps personally accountable for their 2A violations. Which was my original question. It is, in fact, no more persuasive to me than the idea that at least some of the movers and shakers in the 2A advocacy world do not want a real solution, as their positions are only assured so long as the problem persists (same as for elected politicians). I also wonder if some of the high priced lawyers utilized by the orgs aren't entirely too collegial with their attorney adversaries.
-
1 hour ago, brucin said:I don't have the time to find the citation at the moment but the attorneys who litigated the Bruen decision we're entitled to have NY state pay their fees because the state lost in court.
They submitted their fees and a judge ruled that they we're too high and reduced the award considerably.
I'm not sure if they can appeal or not or if it's even worth the time and expense of an appeal.
Bottom line is you can win and still lose money because an activist judge doesn't like that you won.
Are you saying that the attorneys who pursue cases for GOA, SAF, etc. are paid only by contingency, out of judgements? If that is the case, I'd like to see a detailed accounting of where all the donations go. Maybe LaPierre and the NRA aren't as unique in making donations vanish as I would like to think. If that is not the case, my question remains. If that law is as useful a tool to hold the gun grabbers personally responsible for their actions as it would appear to be, why aren't "we" using it?
-
7 hours ago, JimB1 said:Legally they cannot, though you are correct that they often act as if they do which is one of the reasons why the federal courts exist... to determine when a law is in conflict with the constitution. If they want to actually change the constitution, the rules are very clear on how that is done.
You are correct about the legality and the process. However, when >90% (my estimate, don't ask me for a list :-) of the breeches of our constitution go unchallenged, that reality demands recognition as the existing state of affairs. Something needs to be done that fetters both the adminstrative state and the idiotic, self-perpetuating legislature, simultaneously.
-
1
-
-
On 1/17/2024 at 10:51 AM, brucin said:If the judge "feels" the state had the right to confiscate your firearms they will just deny the claim. These liberal progressives think feelings are more important than rights.
If you have the cash and the patience you can appeal the case to higher courts where you may win but you better hope the judge agrees with your attorney fees.
So, since for all practical purposes this appears to cover all unconstitutional firearms seizures, and since it appears to contain the fantastic incentive of making the ass-clowns involved in the seizure personally liable for damages, the crucial question is why our "advocacy" organizations were not running with this, even long before Bruen?
-
1
-
-
On 1/12/2024 at 3:31 PM, JimB1 said:A bill cannot override an amendment to the Constitution, no matter how much they want it to. The rules on how to amend the constitution are very clear.
Bills can and do, all the time. There are a shit-ton of bills that override/violate the Constitution that were passed and are are currently enforced. Judicial review is the end-game solution, but that is very slow, and is becoming more subject to political influence all the time. Fundamental change of some kind is desperately needed, before it is too late.
-
On 1/10/2024 at 11:47 AM, ESB said:Honestly the scariest part of this is that this is really just Latitia James trying to get notoriety in order to get appointed to a much higher position. Imagine her in a higher position of authority and the abuse of power that will entail.
Think Merrick Garland with a deep tan, in drag.
-
5 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:I don’t call this a problem.
Hang them all, and start fresh. Rope is plentiful.I'm not completely confident that there is enough rope.
-
There is a logistics issue with removing and/or punishing politicians who have broken their oaths to uphold the Constitution - you'd need to prosecute nearly all of them. Not that I have any problem with that concept, but I suspect I am in the minority on that.
-
On 1/23/2024 at 10:24 AM, Mr.Stu said:Thinking about it, I think the RPO in question is on dodgy ground. Costco's policy says
- Costco policy prohibits firearms and other weapons to be brought into the warehouse, except in the case of authorized law-enforcement officers.
RPO is not a law-enforcement officer any more.
Federal Judge Rules Against New Jersey and In Favor of Retired Officers In LEOSA Case
-
1
-
On 1/23/2024 at 3:15 PM, Tunaman said:a simple law would stop all of this thievery...mandatory 10 years in jail for stealing or possession of a stolen gun. Democrats do nothing to deter crime. They love crime.
There are quite a few professions whose practitioners have strong incentives against eliminating crime...
-
20 hours ago, dino71 said:There are many dumb asses that shlould never be allowed to own a gun......
Only a coward would would do this.
Idiots, who by any rational standard should be discouraged from operating 2-1/2 ton vehicles at 70 MPH on public roadways, are not prevented from doing so, in spite of the fact that those idiots kill tens of thousands and maim untold additional numbers of people every year. Yet, so far as I am aware, there is no Constitutionally enshrined right to drive.
current application procedure
in Current New Jersey Gun Laws Discussion
Posted
The silence is deafening. I'm baffled by the complete lack of response. Is this that stupid a question? Am I so disliked here that I can't get an answer on behalf of a friend who wants to join the ranks of NJ concealed carriers (I certainly don't go out of my way to be ingratiating, but I don't think I have been that offensive)? Or has NJ made this process so damned complicated and confusing that no one will venture an answer for fear of misleading the applicant?