Walkinguf61
-
Content Count
190 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
N/A
Posts posted by Walkinguf61
-
-
I dont know why guys are fretting about the holster draw. You can wear an OWB belt holster for the qualification. Cops requalification for service or off duty does not dictate what holster the cop can carry in the future. Many cops carry a back up/off duty on their vest holsters while on duty. But they do not qualify from it.. The type of holster isn’t even recorded to my knowledge even in NJ on the requal sheet. But I wasn’t an NJ cop so correct me if I am wrong but I haven’t seen or read anything that would tell me otherwise.
-
1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:i thought that was part of the ny crap that was put on hold?
In NYC, to renew ( technically apply again) a carry permit, the 16 hour class is required with some exceptions.
-
1 hour ago, RadioGunner said:I just did a Maryland class for a group, and it's a PITA. 16 hours, and I covered a lot beyond the required. And yes I did 16 hours. I suspect that's where NJ will go.
New York is already there. People who had their permits for decades have to take the 16 hour course.
-
32 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:was Scilia there too..................all conjecture that most have adopted because we were told to do so, just like everything else we're told to do............read minutes 1779....the only so called "crack shots" were Morgan's Rifle Co. and they didn't do much in the way of training.......they were natural hunters and farmers that brought meat to the dinner table to feed their families before enlisting.
Scalia went into it. Just your own words” they didn’t do much training “ ie meaning they did some. And what was the standard to join the unit if any? Maybe just the ability to shoot and load a rifle . Scalia went into some of it as well as the court cases of historical text and tradition. There are records.
-
1 hour ago, xXxplosive said:How do you know that, were you there.....your just assuming that's what it meant....regulated, last time I looked up the word had many meanings......it actually has nothing to do with arms training but behavior towards commanding officers by enlisted men....see 1779.
It meant that too. I am basing my opinion from Scilica’s opinion of the meaning of the words from watching many interviews with him on the subject.
Were the militia as it was defined then required to gather for training ? The answer is yes.
The type of training isn’t limited to what they did back then . Muskets weren’t marksmanship weapons.
As long as the training maximum is to minimum that of an armed agent of the state directly related to that firearm and realistic purpose, what’s the issue? I have to pass the minimum police firearm standard each year. An 80 year old retired cop was next to me on the firing line ( it’s NY standards) and we both passed. The only issue I have with the NJ standard is the kneeling or standing requirement. What if you are in a wheelchair?
-
1 hour ago, EngineerJet said:I hope I am wrong, but I do not see the training requirement being struck down. We can argue there was no such requirement back during the founding, but I believe if a state decides to make training a requirement, it wont be overturned.
Agreed. The “ well regulated “ part meant training in 1790s. As long it’s not more than a police officer , it’s not an issue with exception of physical movement like kneeling. It’s not that hard of a standard.
-
2 minutes ago, WVPRO2APanther said:Agreed. Carrying in cars should have nothing to do with a firearm on a public road. But that was NJ argument and NJ included that as a “sensitive place.” NJ legislators seen it as if you are in a vehicle on a NJ highway and road are considered government property. That restricted you to carry in the car on government own property in this case highways and roads. Even with a PTC, NJ expected you to follow Federal regulation while traveling which is gun in a case separated from the ammunition. Judge Bumb overturned that portion as that wasn’t no historical law for that and the plaintiffs proved that wasn’t reasonable based on NJ carjacking stats.
That was not because a road is considered government property. It’s because a car is place of easy movement and the dangers of car stops. I point out that I can carry under LEOSA in all 50 states and DC. The exception to where I can not carry without permission is government property. But I can drive or walk on a public road armed. It’s a public road but not government property in this context . There are plenty of other laws that have “ on government property “ restrictions or enhancements that don’t apply if even the act is committed on a public street . But there are laws about guns in cars even on private property
-
17 minutes ago, WVPRO2APanther said:Oh ok. I thought the new law restricted PTC holders to carry in cars as the state argued that highways and roads are state property and the injunction overturned that portion of the law (well at least stopped it for now.)
Carrying in cars has nothing to do with public roads . A lot of car carrying restrictions also apply even if the car is on private property.
-
8 minutes ago, WVPRO2APanther said:Congrats on getting the PTC. Hopeful the 3rd Circuit don't overrule the injunction to carry (meaning more sensitive place like the whole state of NJ). It is unbelievable that the highways and streets are included where you can’t carry, since the state own those roads as part of the new law. Smh.
That is not my understanding. Roads are not considered state property in this context. Even in the hearings for the law, people would be allowed to carry on the street but if they accidentally stepped on someone’s property , it would be a felony.
-
2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:It isn't at Alito's door yet. It isn't even at the 3rd Circuit, quite. NJ filed a notice to appeal - that's like saying "I'm going to file an appeal". It is not actually an appeal.
When they do file it, it will go to the 3rd Circuit. If we're lucky it will go to someone like Judge Hardiman or Judge Bibas. They have a record of supporting 2A in their dissentions in prior cases. If the 3rd upholds the PI, then NJ has the option to make an emergency appeal to SCOTUS. That is when Alito gets to decide on his own, or to consult the rest of SCOTUS.
If the 3rd Circuit Judge rules to stay the PI, our side has the option to make the emergency appeal to SCOTUS. When it gets to Alito, he has the same options as if NJ had filed the emergency appeal.
That’s the beauty of having him as opposed to Sotomeyer. The 3rd circuit knows he might grant that emergency appeal . And if the 3rd rules wrong, it could be fast tracked for consideration as opposed to what happened in the 2nd circuit.
-
3 hours ago, Krdshrk said:Watch at 1.5x speed but I think I have it timestamped pretty well.
Default property rights rule - Judge Bumb rejected all associated with this. States areas open to the public - eg stores, gas stations, etc... It also reads (to me) as open land property as well. If you get pulled over and have to stop along the side of the road in a rural area - you don't know who you need to get permission from, so that can't be held against you.
I'm still waiting on more clarification but this is how I read it. I could be wrong - IANAL.
He tossed out that section based on its not in the history it tradition under Bruen
-
1 hour ago, b47356 said:Anything to keep it tied up in court for 5 years.
It’s not going 5 years especially if the 3rd circuit keeps the injunction in place. The appeal only covers the PI. The judge will turn around and give a permanent injunction of some type after the appeal just like what happened in NY.
The 3d circuit is overseen by Justice Alito , not Sotomeyer like the 2nd circuit is. -
Guys , I have had a quick read .
Health care facilities are NOT open. The plaintiff only had standing to their specfic doctor /medical facility. The following were ruled as not having standing: general hospital, kidney care facilities, nursing homes , outpatient etc etc.[ I can’t get the cut and paste to work on the document.].
The good news was it was just an issue of standing— and he excused the plaintiffs from specific doctor offices. So a new plaintiff who has to go to hospital Ms on a regular basis might win the case.
my reading of the default rule( the default is the owner bans guns unless they say otherwise new rule) is that judge said it does not conform to the history and tradition of the 2nd ( page 144)
parks and playgrounds are the same as the TRO— page 172
youth events — same as TRO— off limits page 179
Libraries , Casinos etc — can carry from my reading of it
I could be wrong so don’t go by me
-
3 hours ago, DirtyDigz said:My emphasis added.
This is worse. Under the TRO, you didn't need permission to carry into someone's home.
Under the PI, it appears you do. So now if you're "out and about" and need to stop at someone's house that you don't have prior permission for, you'll need to "de-gun" before entering their property.Or you tell everyone to presume you are armed and if you aren’t invited in, they invite your gun.
-
3 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:Wow! If they have the right to hire counsel "contractors", we might as well abolish the Attorney General's Office. There are dozens of Deputy Attorney Generals, in salary grades 1 through 4, that do everything from preparing for cases (grade 1) to fetching coffee for the grade 1 (salary grade 4).
We could save a lot of money........
I can’t say this can legally happen in NJ but if California is similar enough, the AG turned down the defense of a law that would require the plaintiffs to pay the state of CA the whole legal bill if they lost one part of their case but won all the others.
The governor then had his lawyer attempt to defend the law . And lost . But it was legal to have an outside council defend the law.
-
I’m counting on NJ because of that, that it goes thru justice Alito to get to SCOTUS and NJ went full retard on it
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Scorpio64 said:Over the past few years my weight has started fluctuating more between warm and cold seasons. I got into the habit of buying pants with stretchy/adjustable waistbands.
That helps. When my weight is on the low side for me, I have no trouble concealing G26. When I get a little fatter, I either go to single stack or get bigger pants. I also have a holster/belt/band systems for when I wear sweatpants. Some systems and positions are better than others . I have boxes of holsters, not just drawers full, that I have collected over the years.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 124gr9mm said:"Printing" is not a crime.
No, but it can get you in to trouble. Both with the general population and the police. A 911 call “ man with gun” is one— I will let you ponder all the ways that can go bad.
-
20 minutes ago, Jfoster99 said:Great Answer… Thank you…
So every time I have to unholster, unload, open the trunk, open my storage box to secure my weapon it will be plainly visible to anyone in a 10 meter radius. Could it be done in a stealthy manner, sure but to do it 3-4 times per typical outing as a normal course of action it will certainly be getting exposed.
Not to mention the danger of all this loading and unloading… Did they know most Police Stations have a special bullet proof container to point the weapon in to load/unload because of all the accidental discharges that happen! I now have to point it at my balls in the front seat of my car to load/unload without being seen.
My head just spins with all of this…
And don’t forget about bullet setback .
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Displaced Texan said:You’ll be self conscious about printing for awhile. The feeling wears off as you find YOUR spot to carry, and as you get more comfortable with it.
I wore my sidearm around the house for a few weeks in order to get used to the feeling of it, and the right clothes to wear with it. Takes time to find your combo.
Wearing a pants size bigger helps and loose fitting shirts are a big help. Being comfortable is important. What would telegraph someone was wearing a gun was when they had to adjust it after moving or getting up.
There is a reason people wear flannel shirts. The pattern breaks up the outline of the gun.
A good belt is a must to keep the “ droop” on the belt from happening.
I tell you this from experience of both carrying myself and making gun arrests .
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, g17owner said:I see a bit of parking lot discussion going on here.
Think about this below. And personally, I think it confuses the issue more, rather than clarify.
We already know that we cannot possess firearms on postal property, that includes parking lots and sidewalks. That was already pre-existing law.
For many years, Ramsey Outdoor in Ledgewood has been in the same building as the US Post Office. All of the stores are connected, share the same sidewalk. Staples sits in between Ramsey and the Post Office. Ramsey is full of guns and people walk in and out of that store with guns and ammo all the time.
The question is, have we all been breaking the law, unwittingly, for all this time?
The answer is no. It’s not postal properly or in control of the postal service . There is case law on this .
From the 10th circuit “Bonidy” case involving the postal reg and the parking lot:
“The Court offered two approaches which it could find that the prohibition was constitutional. First, it looked at the layout of the parking lot, finding that it was attached to the postal building and was for the exclusive use of it. “
-
32 minutes ago, Jfoster99 said:What is a Minimis Infraction?
Normally they word exceptions that at not illegal to be an exemption not a Minimus Infraction ( minimal infraction?)
Does that mean it is only a little bit illegal?
Perhaps depending on the opinion of the officer it can be considered illegal?So Minimal exposure is not Legal it is minimally illegal? Perhaps that means it is so minimally illegal that there are no consequences?
It basically means that an accidental unintentional exposure means the police officer, prosecutors, or the judge don’t have to act on it as a crime.
-
1 hour ago, DirtyDigz said:Must carry concealed currently. I don't think open carry is a legal option under the parts of A4769 that aren't currently TRO'd.
Concealed only unless LE or security guard
-
45 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:Bruen was a SCOTUS decision. The Delaware law is currently at a Federal district court.
Similar to how the 5th circuit recently ruled that the bump stock ban is not enforceable, but that judgement is currently only effective in the states the 5th circuit covers.Incorrect. The decision only affects the federal ban and not an individual state. But affects the entire federal enforcement until there is a split . And the other circuits ruled on bump stocks themselves as where the case in the 5th circuit went after how the rule was made .
Im not a lawyer so don’t take my interpretation as gospel.
NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY
in Pending Legislation Discussion
Posted
It is required for a new permit, not a renewal. NYC and the other counties mentioned don’t do renewals but technically a new permit each time
Can you show me a link that the officer can’t change holsters without doing a requal?
I just read this whole thing.
https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/firearms2001.pdf
There is nothing in it about holsters other than using an agency/department approved holster WHEN QUALIFYING. You can switch holsters . And if your off duty is your service gun or nearly identical— you don’t have to qualify with it if your department agrees.