Jump to content

JHZR2

Members
  • Content Count

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

46 Excellent

About JHZR2

  • Rank
    NJGF Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1970

Profile Information

  • Home Range
    Range 14

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sure. I’m looking right at the NJSP form STS-033, which was the application for FPID and/or handgun purchase permit. Line 29 specifically states: “(29) Names, Addresses and Telephone Numbers of two reputable persons who are presently acquainted with the applicant, other than relatives:” Pretty clear to me, regardless of legality. If that clause was removed from the online documents, that’s great.
  2. This is interesting. I’ve never seen indication that family is OK. I thought the old paper/pdf forms specifically restricted that in fact. Generally seems to me that family is who you want to be asking, since this isn’t a straw purchase and they would have reason to be most familiar. Anyone have a screenshot or indication that family members are now ok?
  3. I’d tend to agree; the concept that “there’s no such thing as a dumb question” may apply here, and thus they need to ask the questions all the same to justify a ruling based upon weak or unacceptable basis. The challenge to that is that my take aways were that the city got rid of the law, and the state apparently set forth a law that prevented cities from enacting similar regulations going forward. If my take-away is accurate, then there is an intrinsic limitation on the ability of the city to escape on mootness and then re-apply the law at a later time, which to me is a concern. The state law prevents it, and thus it would also have to be overturned. Stranger things have happened of course, and I have no doubt that the city was in kahoots with the state when the new law was written. But it does create the potential of mootness based not upon the city’s actions, but the interlock that “assures” reoccurrence. If determined to be moot based upon that premise, it does create a higher standard, even if that standard is fragile.
  4. Anyone know of any of the above in stock/for sale in the vicinity?
  5. That’s part of the reason why I feel like it would be best to let this person attend. Denial means it’s spun into someone being “against” hearing another viewpoint (which of course is a key hypocrisy of the left). Allowance means thanks, now go away is the outcome, for the exact reason you mention, and everyone “had their say”.
  6. Totally agree. But the court could say that after giving him ten minutes to describe his months of analysis... and then say “thanks, we’ll take that into consideration”. My concern is that some whiners cry foul. I couldn’t really care less about the person’s analysis, as I think I have developed my own opinion of what is meant by the 2A by the framers, and in Heller, and I assume the Justices have as well.
  7. The one to ban gun shows in San Diego county is interesting. Lots of military there.
  8. While I like that fact, based upon what I believe is Constitutionally correct, I think it’s an issue if opposing viewpoints are selectively denied. Im not familiar with procedure, and so perhaps there’s a procedural basis. I also appreciate that we don’t need linguists picking apart every last comma in a law all the time. But I’m sure if the tables were turned, we’d want the linguist picking apart commas. I just fear that stuff like this gets used against us or the court by the do-gooders, due to some aspect of implied “fairness”.
  9. Lawmakers who are against certain situations... resourced by deep pocket think tanks, will come along to enact whatever they can to the point they can. Then culture comes into play. Look, NJ could have enacted even more draconian regulations thus far. There have been many in the assembly that don’t move forward. NJ is a pretty darn blue state, and I know plenty of folks here and in other states that vote red but couldn’t care less about 2A per se. so it’s important that “gun culture” in general is maintained as an American thing. Even in leftist states like NJ. From there, you know they’ll vilify the NRA. I think the NRA would be well served to really push more grassroots stuff and prepare more for their legal battles. We need to support the various groups, but there’s a reason why the NRA is the target... every dollar spent fighting on alternate legal fronts, backed by big anti money that they’re willing to burn for that reason, is a dollar less for fighting for legitimate causes. That’s the goal of the leftists. Then, we need to see how to better fight fire with fire. How to make things sting legally for these groups that are trying to manipulate our liberties at all costs. How do groups like the NRA, NJ2AS, etc. make it significantly more expensive for these leftist grabbing groups to stay on the attack?
  10. No part of NJ is NYC, and Trenton isn’t Albany geographically. Impeachment is the thing to do these days. I find this Newark office an abuse!
  11. That’s a good point/question. If they get slapped down, especially if one of the NJ cases ends up at the SC, will they reconsider? Or at least slow down? I suspect to appease the base that they surely consider to be “useful idiots”, they’ll just keep writing and signing in laws, knowing full well that they’ll get scrutinized and struck down. But so long as they sign them in at the right place and the right time to give the optic of doing something, I suspect they’ll keep doing it. Then the question becomes, what is the citizens’ recourse to “lawmakers” continually writing unconstitutional laws that they know will be struck down? I was thinking about them leaving the existing laws on the books to linger unless someone took in the cost to challenge. But they could keep making new unconstitutional laws just for the sake of doing it, I suppose(?).
  12. No issues with using references in PA. I thought they went to references by email in this new system??? The only reference I can see making sense even to rabid anti-2A folks is a spouse, and even that is a violation of privacy and 2A. Nobody else will have enough of a clue.
  13. I’d have to suspect that since these people won’t go quietly, they’ll slow roll any process. Not an expert, but I’d have to suspect that they won’t just wipe every law from the books - they’ll wait for each and every one to be scrutinized however it is, and require each one to have a costly assessment, even if scrutiny is applied correctly and implemented at the lowest possible level. Its like suing an at-fault party that is insured - they’ll work to make everyone bleed. They’re trained to get to the jury trial, because they know it’s the most costly approach and not worth it to most to invest the effort. In this case the rights grabbers will try to make everyone bleed because their backers have deep pockets.
  14. Bump stocks are an accessory, and their existence, or lack thereof, does not create infringement upon 2A. They are not customary and only incidental to the fundamental design and operation of the firearm they are installed on. Im sure we could come up with a variety of accessories in many areas, not just guns, where in some conceptual interest of some notional “public good”, they have been restricted or banned. This sort of test or scrutiny only fails in the most broad sense of freedom, which I doubt is accepted. Authority of an entity to ban these items is another story... because it’s not necessarily at law, but rather by edict which may not have been delegated to legislate. I suspect even in FL there are regulated items that cannot be purchased for reasons of the “public good”. So relating back to the topic at hand, the key element in this decision is the invocation of strict scrutiny, which notionally requires more consideration on infringement for any and all regulations. This does open the door for more critical analysis of laws of concern in NJ, FL, wherever.
  15. Are we sure it’s due to work verification? I don’t see how that’s salient to a determination on this. Just another hassle.
×
×
  • Create New...