unclenunzie

I have a PM9 in the usual two tone, it is a great carry and shoots smooth for a tiny 9mm. Congrats, may it serve you well but never be needed to save a life. One thing I have learned about handguns, money well spent is never missed, but poorly spent is always lamented.

That is exactly what I was thinking. Prior to this dicta I and I know others felt that all we needed was proof of legality of destination in order to be legally protected. Others expressed the need for caution in making such an assumption. The state police web site talks of proof of legality in destination, and as an example an out of state hunting license was mentioned. But a valid out of state carry license should serve equally well, for purposes of NJ law, and this case opinion's dicta seems rather supportive of the idea. disclaimer: I am no lawyer, and what I have said cannot possibly be relied upon by anyone, for any purpose whatsoever. If you need legal advice, which this isn't, go hire a lawyer.

I got the impression they were not actually hostile to 2A, and that once the binding precedents, which they MUST follow, are invalidated by higher courts, that they might actually approve it. That being said, I thought the out of state transport was more interesting.

I win because you quoted me

http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/courts/appellate/a0269-11.opn.html I picked this up at another forum and thought it would be of interest. A superior court decision (denied) on a NJ carry permit application from a man in NJ who works in dangerous conditions in NYC and has a NYC carry permit. Yes you read that right. Short opinion and worth reading, particularly as it touches on 2A and past NJ case law. And, what I think is for the first time, a court, though tangentially, appears to have no problem with FOPA-type transport of handguns out of state to a place where the person has a carry license.

Obama went about as far as he could go politically on the matter, just before the election last November. What people don't seem to get is that the states are obligated by the constitution (article 4) thus: Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. So a couple who got legally married in las vegas also legally is married everywhere else they might happen to be in the United States, because all states are required to recognize the legal marriages from every other state, in theory. BUT.......... In 1996 the congress created a new federal law (signed by clinton), which defined legal marriage (not religious marriage) in the familiar one man one woman, with the intended effect to not recognize SS marriages from Hawaii, where there was a court case won there. Thus no federal recognition of SS marriage. In addition, the law specifically exempted the states from article 4 full faith and credit requirements, for just this specific purpose. Now reading the clear text of article 4, many including me have come to the conclusion that congress lacks the power to exempt a state, and that only an amendment would provide that power. But in any event, there are several cases have been already decided against the law at the appeals level, and now two cases are before the SCOTUS. The two lawyers who opposed each other in Bush Vs Gore have teamed up and will argue the case against the law. Personally, I feel congress violates the constitution here as they have in abusing the commerce clause authority, which is the root of their legal power to regulate firearms across state lines. I do believe national gun control is unconstitutional at least in the GCA of 1968. But even the Heller 5 won't go near that.

TK421 that sounds like a router software defect.

Depends on how it is viewed, and who is doing the reporting. I think the number of households as a percentage of total househoulds might be slightly down trend wise, but the total number might be up, and the number of firearms is definitely up Since 2009 I've done my part to add to both counts

I never said anything about slavery, have no idea where you got that. But miscegenation laws, yeah, they match well enough. Although the state issues are a concern, such as lack of hospital visitation rights (which no legal contract can create), states are a related but different matter. But in any case, why should SS couples have to go to the expense and difficulty of artificially constructing a legal arrangement just so they can protect some of their rights and common property that simple civil marriage provides straight couples? Though there are a handful of states that will provide something similar, but not equal in legal protections and responsibilities, I am mostly talking about the federal government. You are obviously not aware that legally married SS couples are denied social security death benefits by federal law, and that spousal inheritances are subject to federal income taxes - among many other issues at the federal level. Widows of straight marriages continue to collect 1/2 of their deceased spouses social security. SS widows are cut off, by federal law. Widows of straight marriages inherit tax-free. SS widows are taxed as if their spouse was a totally unrelated stranger. SS married/civil-union solders cannot get medical coverage for their spouse nor receive any spousal benefits that a straight spouse has earned. Again, the federal government treats SS spouses as if they were strangers, by law. There is a huge difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I have no concerns about religious marriage, which anyone is free to engage in, in accord with their faith of choice, and within the rules of their church. No church has ever been required to provide marriage services to SS couples in states where it is legal, and they are explicitly protected from any such requirement in law. Civil marriage is the structure which provides for legal responsibilities and benefits, and it is civil marriage that of of concern here. So to be clear, Civil unions and SS marriages in states that allow them have absolutely no effect on the federal situation. At all. And its a damn shame that so-called freedom-minded people would through the law, deliberately suppress them.

Matty reply: Education funding: So what's 'fully' mean? Enough to ensure that student/teacher ratios do not exceed well-established thresholds. I don't have numbers handy but we'd need to hire a lot more teachers to achieve something like 25-1 in inner cities. Don't know whats the right number but 35-1 is bad. And buildings need to be renovated to allow for proper heat/AC where needed, decent supplies and equipment. Medicare for all: No, Able bodied and working adults should not be on free healthcare. Medicare is not free healthcare. It's taxpayer funded and participants pay monthly premiums. Employer based insurance is paid for by the employer and employee with monthly premiums. Here's my main point: With healthy young adults paying into medicare instead of to for-profit insurance companies , the overall pool is healthier and the costs per member go down. Right now statistically costlier people are all that are in the system (65+ and disabled). It will be cheaper for everyone in the long run if everyone who has a job is automatically in. We know that white collar jobs pay better and offer better insurance. But not everyone has these - there are many more people who work for small businesses that pay less and can't afford coverage. Like my next door neighbor who is a precision machinist. Hard working, can't afford insurance. My brother in law in texas is a regional sales manager at a car dealership. He's also hard working and proud american. They have three children, and he has health insurance. Him. Alone. They can't afford to cover anyone else and since he is the breadwinner this makes sense given the circumstances. But it means making the choice NOT to see a doctor when my sister in law or the kids are sick. With Medicare opened up, this would not be a problem and businesses would no longer have to subsidize insurance for their employees. And as a single payer, medicare system could get much lower negotiated prices for meds. I'm not saying it wouldn't cost a bit more to get everyone coverage who doesn't have it. But all you need to look at are mortality rates by country, and what their per-capita spends are for health care. We are paying a lot more, and getting a lot less in outcomes. When you think about it, it really has to turn out that way, because we have insurance companies pulling in aggregate over $200 Billion annually. What do they provide in return, management of paperwork, accounting, and obstacles to claims? The way I see it, these insurance businesses do nothing but siphon off money from everyone in the system. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers, all of these do something we need, and they have every right to profit from their efforts. Denial of Marriage rights: How so? Voters in many states have approved Gay Marriage. Some have not. Civil rights should never be put up for popular vote. They should be guaranteed as fundamental, and it is unconscionable that the federal government has legalized discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens, and unconstitutionally given the states permission to do the same. Congress does not have this authority, and I expect DOMA to be struck down next summer. Regarding put to a vote, do you think that mixed race couples should have been prevented from marriage if their states people voted to make that illegal? The southern states absolutely hated this idea and made it a crime. They had no right to do this, and eventually these laws were struck down (see loving vs virginia) As to Republicans suppressing same sex marriage, you can look at all the republican states that have banned it through constitutional amendments or statute. Last I know it is about 30 of them. Lastly, here's the Republican party platform statement on the matter: http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#Item1 Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage <a href="http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/#" style="outline: 0px; border: 0px; color: rgb(12, 51, 91); text-decoration: initial;">(Top) The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity. As to that last sentence, sure you do. But not with equality.

A bit tin foil, though there are always nuts who want to stop people from saying things they don't like, or to retaliate in improper ways, if they do. Never get away with it here, though it is a worthwhile cautionary tale.

I've sent it to the whitehouse page for thoughts on "gun violence": I DO NOT support banning firearms or limiting their capability. I am OPPOSED to further restrictions. The newly crafted AWB SHOULD NOT be passed into law. The people of the USA have the right to firearms in common use, including standard semi-automatic rifles of intermediate caliber (5.56/.223, 7.62, etc) and fed by magazines of any practical size. Have your people read this and consider it without emotional or ideological blinders: http://www.law.harva...auseronline.pdf

I'm not ok with voter fraud, it is a serious crime with very serious penalties (felony 5 years, $10,000). The risk/reward factor is negative in the extreme - there is no credible incentive for the vast, vast majority of people to commit such a crime, to risk their freedom and permanent loss of rights. Factually the incident level of voter fraud is very, very low, and a heavy handed approach that the disenfranchises more legitimate voters than stops frauds is a very bad idea. It doesn't rise to the level of of treason as defined in our founding documents, but it is highly unamerican. How does early voting create more opportunity for fraud? The less early voting we have, the more integrity in the system? Where is the harm in opening the polls for more days - run by the same people, in the same places, in the same way? We've been having election day in the middle of a november work week for decades... There are so many people who by law cant be prevented from going to vote, but who will lose pay from work. Fine, no work no pay. But that puts unfair economic pressure of a lot of people to not exercise their right to vote. Early and weekend voting should be the standard, not just a single Tuesday that fit the needs of an agrarian culture over 150 years ago. I happened to be in Florida during the early voting period this past election, and saw for myself the long lines due to cutbacks in early voting. Lee county is majority Republican, nearly 90% white and there were bitter complaints about the long lines, with old people standing in the humidity and heat waiting to get inside. It was worse in the more urban, typically democratic districts. It should be honest, open to all citizens, and take no more than an hour. This might be of interest. http://votingrights....fraud-database/

Matty I'll reply once I have enough energy. Between holidays, work, and responding to ignorant gun-control attack dogs elsewhere, I'm beat.

Replacing your current router with a new wireless one from the major makers (not belkin) is relatively cheap and the best overall solution. You will get the latest features for not much money. Mine which works pretty good is from D-link, and it has a USB port for a disk drive which can be shared across the network.

The difference here is that once registered, after years of voting in every election, you're not going to be thrown off the voter rolls and sent a letter demanding proof of citizenship to get your voting rights back..... right before an important election. That's what our friends in Florida were doing, an important swing state. And closing down early voting hours, not supplying enough voting machines in urban and minority areas so people are on line for hours, as was the case in OH. All of this tends to suppress the vote, and targets more democrats than republicans. Intentionally. I'd have the same problem with any democrat controlled states that tried to suppress republican or independent voters too. Access to political participation should be made as easy as possible. Old people, disabled people, working poor should not have to stand in lines for 8 hours to cast a ballot. No one should. NY State is a messed up example too, as they have terribly long lines and don't have early voting. The democrats aren't paragons of efficiency, but at least they spread their ineptitude onto everyone I don't have a problem with ID requirements as a whole. What I object to is creating hurdles that affect people unequally, and manufacturing barriers to make the process as difficult as possible. Voting is our right as citizens, equal to any right in the BOR, and should be standardized for access and requirements across the country. On a constitutional basis, we might not be able to apply uniform rules and access to state/local level elections, but for federal elections we can and should. Further I think it is unwise in a democracy for any elected official to control the election process. We should have independent management that ensures standardized processes, equipment and access is the same everywhere.

Indeed. Reading that article I can just see how that would go down. Man that is just so trashy. And Corzine.... "lapse in judgement", I'll bet. He seems to be a whole bag of that.

Your ranting and personal insults are unconvincing. But if it helps any, Social justice does not mean "free stuff" for undeserving moochers paid by punitive taxes extorted from job-creating rich people. It means fully funding public education, ending the drug war, medicare for all, and getting corporations out of the political influence business. It means public support of basic scientific research so we can compete technologically with other countries. Rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure across the country. Creating a new Civilian Conservation Corp to suck up unemployed and disaffected youth, to teach them civic duty and the honest rewards it brings. I agree that the democrats suck on gun rights. But the republicans deny marriage equality, hamper working people's rights, ignore the poor, and suppress the right to vote wherever they can. And spare me false claims of voter fraud as justification for repressive voter ID laws. While the republicans have in the past had plenty to offer in balancing the excesses of the democrats, they have in recent years driven moderates out of the party and promoted nuttiness as a virtue. They have marginalized the legitimate interests of a large portion of the american people, and have suffered political defeats as a result. A pox on both their houses, democrats and republicans alike. Between these two lamentable choices, I will take the democrats and counter their failings through support of relatively apolitical gun rights organizations. I cannot directly support republicans on gun rights alone, because of their stands on other areas that are important to me. My hope for gun rights is in the courts, which of late have been supportive.

My post was certainly constructive and on topic - it was about them tying unrelated concepts together and damaging the business prospects of a manufacturer they had a deal with. How does my lack of knowledge of their NJ sales policy invalidate what I said about their Troy-related business practices?

Had a gun store / range guy in Florida absolutely drooling over mine. Not for sale I told him. You'd think his dog died, poor guy. But in all seriousness, I got mine special order through Bullethole a few years ago. Manny found it for me somewhere. The only regret is that I could not get NJ compliant mags with the matching steel/chrome finish. So it came with black 10 rounders. Naturally I added a load of 15-round factory mags from CDNN I think. Problem is these were a limited run of production, and I guess no one wants to sell them. I did have to put an extra power extractor spring in it at first, now it just runs with anything brass so far. Good luck in your search, you never know.

IANAL. It;'s perfectly legal for a person who buys a rifle in PA with intent to make a gift of it to someone in NJ, so long as the rifle is legal in NJ and the NJ recipient has an NJ FPID card. He could buy it and keep it in his safe, and once the NJ person has their FPID, could send it to an NJ FFL for pickup by NJ person. Present card, pass NICS, pay whatever fees, take home. My read is that a straw purchase occurs if the final recipient is a prohibited person or otherwise not compliant with state law (no FPID, etc).

I have no idea if this would meet legal requirements, but I wonder if being a part owner in the business would be sufficient for firearms carry on site for legal purposes. Probably not. Then again, a husband and wife might each have partial ownership of house and property aka "land owned or controlled by him", such that carry at home or family land is legal. Or rather, no jury even in this f^cked up state would convict for.

After waiting sufficient time, going down in person and speaking face to face with the detective has always worked for me. Typically 7-10 days later the permits-are-ready notice is in my mailbox.

If the glock box is lockable, and when locked the gun can't be easily got to (prying the case seams, etc, then it will meet requirements. However I would recommend investing $30 in one of the small steel cases that includes a cable. You can secure the locked case to the inside of your checked bag if it one that has a metal frame. The steel lock box is also great for when you want to secure your gun in a car, if needed, when in gun friendly states.

Not that Dicks sells guns in NJ anyway (that I know of, too lazy to search), but here is a further reason for me not to patronize them. They've now conflated lawful sales, purchase, and ownership of the common AR-15 platform with the murderous behavior of an obvious psychotic. At the same time, they've violated basic fair business principles, and I hope Troy can take legal action to recover from whatever damage was done to their new business.