ianargent

I was being a little pedantic, for which I apologize. I agree that until the 14th amendment the BoR was understood to be a limitation on the federal government, not on the states.

Amendment X contains a limitation on the states in that certain powers denied the states are reserved to the people, but I take your meaning. The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly believed it was necessary to amend the Constitution to apply more limitations on the powers of the states.

The Constitution does set some limits on the states. Otherwise, you're spot-on

And there was a suit to override that on 10A grounds that was lost. Which is good for us; if Congress can mandate states allow carriage by a certain class of people, they can mandate all be allowed to carry. Remember, shouting "shall not be infringed" hasn't worked to date - let's see what happens when Congress says "and we mean it."

The 2A was applied against the states via the 14th amendment - which is what I was quoting. As was most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment and the "discovery" of the Incorporation Doctrine it was not at all clear the BoR was applicable to the states, and technically it still isn't unless the right has been Incorporated. Blame the racists for that, but there you are. You want a different answer, rewrite the Constitution and a couple hundred years of judicial precedent. The Federal Government enforces things against the states by legislation - hence, HR822. They have chosen to explicitly declare that under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment requires the states recognize each others carry permits. Because of the path we took to get here, the states won't listen to anything else, and there will be a lawsuit over this as an overstep. The states lose - because of the precedent of LEOSA. I don't happen to agree with the invocation of the Commerce Clause as an additional justification it's gilding the lily; but neither is it an integral justification of the legislation. This is not a perfect solution - but it's one that will pass and can be further built upon. Next time around Congress can force the states to go shall-issue under the same doctrine, and with this as precedent, the anti's case is that much weaker. It took us 77 years of mostly losing to get here, we're not going to get to a state of perfect freedom in one go.

And Congress is enforcing that by appropriate legislation...

Depends on how many it passes by - in the Senate the equivalent to this bill failed by 1 vote; which put it within 7 of a veto override...

If we can keep the Heller/McDonald majority, I can see that going up the chain once...

It was ambiguous because NYC issues it's own carry permits and the wording only covered states that issue permits without mentioning smaller governments. The new version covers that.

The Franks amendment fixes two things - one, states like MA where you have to have a permit to possess, and two, NYC having a separate permit from NYS (see line 20)

I'm sure the transfer took place outside of NJ, where BB guns are not firearms. Remember, there's no issue with bringing a firearm that you legally possessed from out of state into the state.

The law implements (a small part of) the 2A, since certain states won't do it on their own. A regulation would require a bureaucracy to enforce, which this doesn't. It's like the recent Florida law that adds penalties for violations of state preemption. In this case, the federal government has preempted the states' ability to (unconstitutionally) restrict reciprocity. The penalty (for the states) is that they can't prosecute otherwise law-abiding citizens for exercise of their right to bear arms. That is the power granted to Congress under the 5th clause of the 14th Amendment, to "enforce by appropriate legislation." If there was a Department of Reciprocity under the BATFE being created by this, but then I'd worry. But as it is, there is no expansion of Federal authority. This is a "and this time we mean it!" law, but sometimes you need that.

This is being done under the authority of the 14th amendment to allow Congress to enforce the provisions of the 2nd Amendment - namely: 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Hence, the 10th amendment does not apply as this is a power delegated to Congress explicitly. This is not a regulation of firearms, it is an anti-regulation. Nothing is taken from the people, and the only thing taken from the states is their (unconstitutional) restrictions on carry by out-of-state visitors. It doesn't help in-state residents, yet, but half a loaf is better than none. And there's several chances yet at forcing shall-issue judicially or legislatively. It doesn't even set a precedent, as the law that Congress used to force states to issue to retired LEOs did that (and shows a model by which Congress can force states to issue to all, incidentally). There is no Federal Firearms Permit, and there won't and can't be by this bill - since it leaves the permitting process in the hands of the states.

That would open a couple of cans of worms I don't think we want opened. Better to force the states to go to a Shall-Issue regime by a combination of action in the Courts and Congress; then let that evolve to Constitutional Carry.

Can it transfer from an out-of-state FFL to an NJ resident, though? (I don't know the answer to that, not having particular interest in a pistol-grip shotty)

Um. That's beautiful. Can I buy it from an out of state FFL? What happens if it's a rifle in PA and a handgun in NJ when I cross the Delaware? For that matter, what happens if the BATFE agent sees me put it into a backpack? (I think it's great!)

14th Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce "by appropriate legislation." The 10th Amendment argument is the red herring, since the 2nd is incorporated via the 14th.

Under HR 822, there's little NJ can do to prevent out of state folks from carrying without also preventing in-state permit holders from carrying under the same restrictions. As noted, reciprocity requires "least restrictions" be extended to the out of state permit holders. Any multi-tier system would allow the out of state folks to carry at the least restricted tier.

One of my references (who is very pro-gun) sat on the paperwork for a couple of weeks because she thought she had to write essay form answers to all the questions, not just to explain "negative" answers. Talk to reference and find out politely what the hold-up is.

4 of them - don't know if it's the top 4, though.

On your own property &c. this applies When travelling between permitted locations, the rest applies Subsection g only applies to the second part (from, between, &c). Incidentally, if subsection G did apply to the first part, it would be facially unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald; Heller forced DC to allow people to possess functional, loaded, firearms at home, and McDonald applied Heller to the states.

One interesting thing is that every one of the "yes" is still in Congress, and at least 2 of the "no" votes were replaced by pro-2A senators. And it will be very hard for a "yes" vote.to change their minds.

SCOTUS had been taking and knocking down restrictions on 2A. And for all the FUD, the core holding of Heller said "keep and bear"

This suit is in the Federal courts, under Federal law and the US Constitution. No NJ court has jurisdiction.

It is unconstitutional by the NJ constitution per the NJ Supreme Court for a police officer to request a consent search of an automobile incident to a traffic stop without having Reasonable and Articulatable Suspicion: "the NJ Supreme Court decision in State v. Carty requires that an officer possess reasonable and articulable suspicion that evidence of a crime or contraband could be found in the car before a request for consent can be made." (I'm pretty sure this is why I spent 45 minutes close to 20 years ago answering "No" to a cop asking me if I had ever smoked Marijuana).