Jump to content

RadioGunner

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    518

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    N/A

Posts posted by RadioGunner

  5. Posted

    59 minutes ago, [email protected] said:

    No state in the country charges fees anywhere near $200.00 let alone $400.00 for 2 years. This should be an easy win in court! I believe there may even be a law prohibiting a fee for exercising a Constitutional right!

     

    New York City is $340 for 3 years. 

    Massachusetts is interesting. They grant non residents 1 year permit only (I have one) and you renew every year for $100. Not as expensive as NJ but it's a PITA. 

    I am hoping this is an easy win but I think it will take time.

  7. Posted

    This is what the law actually says:

     

    (2) A person who obtained a permit pursuant to this section prior to the first day of the seventh month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) and which permit is not scheduled to expire until at least one year following the enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) shall comply with the training requirement established pursuant to this subsection no later than the first day of the tenth month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.).

     

    I think there can be two interpretations here. 

    1. "Pursuant to this section" could mean only the police chief issued permits. This is likely where GFH's reasoning is from. 

    2. If you interpret "Pursuant to this section" as including judge issued permits, and your permit has more than a year's validity, then yes, you will have to re-qualify and take the new training. 

     

    I am leaning toward 2. due to the nuances in this wording:
    "a permit pursuant to this section" vs "the training requirement established pursuant to this subsection." They seem to be talking about the entire section as to permits issued which included judge issued permits.

     

    Ultimately though, the AG will have to clarify this, and undoubtedly there will (and should) be court challenges.

    I will be taking the revised shooting course, just to be on the safe side. 

    • Agree 1

  11. Posted

    8 hours ago, Fawkesguy said:

    Yeah, I get it.  But about 90% of NJ's population don't own guns.  Our only hope is the courts, not elected officials. Don't hope that the electorate will suddenly start voting for Constitution-respecting politicians.  That ship sailed long ago, if it ever even existed in this state. 

    Yes. That is our only recourse now. That and federal law such as national reciprocity.

    • Like 1

  15. Posted

    From what I could gather:

     

    NEW PLACES ALLOWED:
    Zoos
    Health care facilities - only as to facilities set forth in Plaintiffs’ declarations ( I believe this excludes mental health facilities)
    Public filmmaking locations
     
    STRUCK DOWN:
    Insurance mandate
    in-person interview requirement of carry permit applicant’s character endorsers
     
    CLARIFIED:
    Airport carry still prohibited, checking unloaded firearm in is not prohibited, as is carry while pickup/dropoff also not prohibited.
    Private property only applies to publicly accessible places. 
     
    STILL PROHIBITED:
    Schools
    playgrounds
    childcare facilities
    youth sporting events
     
    NOT GONE:
    Higher fees
    Exception for judges, prosecutors, AGs
    Anti-Brandishing
    Fish and game restrictions
    References
    "Such other information" to review a concealed carry applicant’s application

  18. Posted

    3 hours ago, ESB said:

    You are missing the point.  Aiken did NOT get in trouble because he had them while moving.  Read that again.  It is legal to possess HP if you are travelling from one home to another. 

    It says so right on the NJ State Police FAQ website.    Please show me the law that specifically states that you cannot possess HP ammo when moving.  Also please email the NJ State Police and let them know that their website is wrong.  That you cannot actually travel from one home to another with HP ammo.  

     

    Firearms Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) | New Jersey State Police (nj.gov)

    1. I’m not a police officer, are hollow points legal for me to possess?

      Yes.  They are legal for purchase and possess in your home or on land owned by you.  They are legal to possess and use at a gun range.  They are also legal to possess while traveling to and from such places. Ammunition lacking a hollow cavity at the tip, such as those with a polymer filling, are not considered to be hollow point ammunition.  An example of this can be seen with the Hornady Critical Defense / Critical Duty, Cor-Bon PowRball / Glaser Safety Slug and Nosler Inc. Defense ammunition.


    That is incorrect.

     

    NJSA 2C:39-3 f.Dum-dum or body armor penetrating bullets.  (1) Any person, other than a law enforcement officer or persons engaged in activities pursuant to subsection f. of N.J.S.2C:39-6

    The exemption for moving is NJS 2C:39-6(e). 

    NJS 2C:39-6(f) is strictly about target practice. 
     

    Instead of NJS 2C:39-6(e) they put a narrower exemption. 

    NJSA 2C:39-3g(2)  a.  Nothing in subsection f. (1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land, 

     

    Says nothing about moving. Only says you’re legal to possess at your dwelling, premises, land owned or possessed - and - only FROM place of purchase to your home. You can’t even take it out of your home unless you’re going to target practice. 
     

     

    • Agree 1

  23. Posted

    11 minutes ago, ESB said:

    Like property owner rights...   It is private property and the owner has the right to not allow carry via signage.   The difference is this is a trespassing charge vs felony gun charge like carrying at a school for example.  


    The problem I have with this is the state encouraging or even demanding that establishments ban carry. And that any ban doesn’t extend to retired law enforcement. 
     

    Any ban should be entirely voluntary and the state should have no say. Unfortunately I suspect they’ve been getting nudged by the administration. 

×
×
  • Create New...