BRaptor

You know, I thought this didn't exist. Looked it up, apparently, in NJ, it does. NJSA 10:5-4 says one cannot discriminate based upon "source of lawful income used for rental or mortgage payments." Learn something new...

I just don't foresee any court equating a no firearms clause to racial segregation, and I don't think they are anywhere near equivalent for many reasons. I also don't believe this one apartment's lease provision rises to oppression. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on this topic.

THAT, my friend, is double jeopardy. Prosecution cannot retry these charges on these facts. If there had been a mistrial or hung jury, prosecution could retry. But not now.

Ask and ye shall receive. Brian Aitken Opinion.pdf

I completely disagree. First, I would NEVER post something like what Spike and Roseann posted. It's irresponsible and attempting to incite violence. Second, inciting and encouraging violence (like what Spike Lee and Roseanne were trying to do), or at the very least defaming someone (like what Spike Lee actually ended up doing) is NOT within anyone's rights. That's not 1A protected speech. So, they're completely in the wrong. They have no defense and no right to do what they did. There's a very good reason why news outlets almost never post the address of people that are involved in highly contentious and emotional events. It's because it's irresponsible and dangerous.

A contract is not injuring, oppressing, threatening or intimidating. As a matter of fact, if those elements exist during the negotiation of the contract, that makes it voidable by the oppressed, threatened or intimidated party.

It's a "right to contract" issue in an open market. In general, two parties may enter into a contract to do or not do anything, so long as the action is not illegal. Again, I'll tell you, you can freely contract away LARGE portions of your 1A rights (no signs, billboards, flags, flag poles, pamphletting, soliciting or campaigning in an HOA or apartment complex) in exchange for a leasehold estate. If you are a co-tenant with your landlord, he may let the police in to search all common areas (there's your 4A right). Are you all HONESTLY advocating that the government should get even more involved in our ability to enter into and enforce contracts that two parties entered into with open eyes by holding it unenforceable in court?!?!?! I'm saddened. I thought this forum had more independent thinkers and believers. If you don't like the clause in the lease, negotiate it. If the landlord won't budge, be an adult and WALK! Don't sign a lease you don't intend to follow.

Welcome! If you, your wife and son have not done so, already, please consider signing the right to carry petition sponsored by the New Jersey Second Amendment Society. http://www.change.org/petitions/new-jersey-right-to-carry

Yes, exactly, they changed it from a "knowing" requirement, which is difficult to prove all the way down to a strict liability statute, which is easy peasy to prove! This is the same opinion that said "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril." So, you can interpret the "judges'" mindset from that quote. When I learned statutory construction, I learned that the mens rea element was supposed to be applied to all elements of the crime. Thus, they way I read the statute, you should have known that you possessed the object and known that it would hold more than 15 rounds. But, then again, I don't get to interpret and apply these laws. The knowledge requirement is a little more thoroughly fleshed out when you add the case where a conviction of a couple teenagers (for unlawful possession of a firearm, I think) was overturned on appeal, because they didn't know that they had the gun and ammunition in the car until they discovered it when they were broken down on the side of the road. The court said that they didn't have the opportunity to discover the illegal nature of the items and then get rid of them. Thus, they did not "knowingly" possess them.

Oh so very, very wrong! It doesn't matter if you KNOW that the magazine can do it. It ONLY matters that you know you possess the magazine. The inherent properties of the magazine are unchanged and do not impact the legality of owning them. ETA: I finally found the case! State of NJ v. Joseph Pelleteri Edited, again, to add a clear quote from the opinion: "We hold that knowledge of the character of the weapon is not an element of the offense."

You're correct, the law does require an intent. Unfortunately, the intent portion of the law is "knowingly possess." NJ courts have already held that it doesn't even matter if the person knew whether or not the magazine would hold 16+ rounds. The part of knowledge is knowing that they possess the object. The rest of the case is just establishing already-existing facts (i.e. "is the magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds and continuously feeding into a semi-auto?").

Many of you may wish to check/edit your posts: NJSA 2C:39-1(y) NJSA 2C:39-3(j) I don't see anything about intent or about other possible calibers making an "illegal" magazine legal.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. The only problem that I have is that you suggested modifying the lease without saying anything. Making a modification without saying anything makes that modification voidable and, possibly, the entire contract voidable. The issue of Constitutional rights doesn't really come into play, because it's all private party actions. Unless you're talking about discriminatory practices or discriminatory covenants. Then, it's either statutorily illegal to discriminate or courts are unwilling to enforce discriminatory covenants (e.g. I promise not to have hispanic guests in my apartment), basically, because they don't want it to appear as though the court is "approving" of the discrimination. In a lease or covenant, you can write off parts of your 1A rights (think of HOA's and apartment complexes that don't permit crosses, signs, flags or flag poles in the yard), and you can likely write off parts of your 2A rights, too.

How did you come to the conclusion that it's unlikely they can enforce it? How did you come to the conclusion that rental laws in NJ are very renter friendly? Eviction laws in NJ are pretty standard in terms of ability to evict someone. True, it may take up to 10 months to get a tenant out, but only if the tenant is VERY savvy and able to prove to the court that they're completely unable to find other housing. But, even if the court grants a tenant the relief of delaying physical eviction, the court can only do that so long as the tenant pays the rent as it comes due (FL's laws are actually more tenant friendly, the tenant can avoid paying rent and still maintain possession--I've seen it done). If you're a financially-fit person that isn't willing to lie to the court, and the grounds for eviction is your breaking the rules of the lease, then your eviction will likely take 4 months...MAX. You can risk it, or you can talk to them, and decide from there. Either way, I would NOT rely on the clause being "unenforceable."

This was covered here in July of last year: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/25882-legality-of-apartment-buildings-putting-a-no-firearms-clause-in-your-lease/ Somehow, the consensus opinion was that the clause is not enforceable. I don't come to the same conclusion. If you have a problem with one of the provisions in the lease, you should talk to the management company/landlord. If they won't agree to change the lease terms, speak to a lawyer to see if it's really enforceable. Unfortunately, this is very likely an unenforceable modification to the lease.

Here, I created a way for you to write the response yourself! Take the old, tired, overused quotes from below and organize them into any order that you wish. Then, e-mail it to yourself and pretend the Brady's responded. I promise you, the response that you create yourself will make more sense than what they have to say. "Guns only have one purpose; to kill people. Therefore, any comparison to vehicles, pharmaceuticals, doctors, building jumpers, bridge jumpers, abandoned wells, etc. is void, because those other things serve a purpose beyond killing." "You don't need a gun if nobody else has them, either." "Guns kill more people per year than x, y and z diseases combined." "The NRA is a special-interest lobby funded only by the gun companies that profit from your misguided desire to protect yourself and your family, but we're 'the voice of the people.' Abandon your errant ways and Join Us (we've included an SASE/hyperlink for your first monetary donation)!" "The police are there to help you, you need to rely on them for protection." "More people with guns will lead to more psychotic vigilantes like Zimmerman." "If it saves just one life..." Hope this helps!

Doesn't Allstate have "accident forgiveness?" Otherwise, my suggestion is to sign up with Nationwide and enroll in their "Snap-Shot" program. You drive around with a OBD-reader that detects your driving style (time of driving, speed, acceleration and braking--NOT location). If you drive carefully and for fewer than average miles for the 90 days that they have you plug it in, they'll reduce your premium by up to 20%. They took 18% off mine, they actually refunded me about $100, because I paid my 6 month premium in full ahead of time!! And the discount remains on your policy for as long as you have it

The 4A doesn't care if the intent or the government agency is LE or not, prosecution-oriented or not. The 4A hinges a bit more on the type of investigation, rather than the type of government agency. But, here's the problem, what are YOU gonna do about the NSA's spying? The only thing you can do is object to any information if it is raised against you during prosecution. Or, you could start at civil lawsuit for damages for violating your 4A rights under color of government action. But, there are problems. First, standing. You have no idea if they actually have any information on you; you can't plead any specific facts. So, your complaint/suit won't survive a motion to dismiss (see SCOTUS's Twombly decision). You won't even make it to discovery. Assuming your suit did survive the motion to dismiss--which you wouldn't...ever, NONE of their activities are discoverable in a civil trial, because they're Secret or higher security and a matter of National Security and the balance of interests falls in the government's favor, because they're "not using it to hurt you!" Courts won't delve into what the NSA does absent HUGE political pressure (trust me, judges read the papers and can be swayed by public and political pressure and what's in the news) and/or evidence that what they are doing is actually harming you. If you don't like people spying on you, ditch your phones, computers, credit cards, bank accounts, cars, house and job. Go all cash and move to west West Virginia. Otherwise, in the words of the great Roger Waters...Welcome to the Machine.

Mr. Blarney walks into a bar. Inside that bar, a horse is tied in the corner with a large jar full of $5 bills in front of it. Curious, Mr. Blarney asks the bartender what the deal is with the horse and the large jar of money. The bartender says, "It's a game we have going. You have to put a fiver in the jar, and if you can make the horse laugh, you can take the jar full of money." Mr. Blarney walks over to the horse, whispers something in his ear and the horse erupts in laughter. The horse laughs so hard, it starts to snort and roll on the floor. Mr. Blarney picks up the jar of fives and happily walks out the door. Two years later, Mr. Blarney is traveling through the same town. He walks into the bar, and there's the same horse, standing in the corner of the bar with a new jar, but this time, the jar is filled with $10 bills. Mr. Blarney approaches the bartender, and asks, "are yeh still tryin' tuh make that harse laugh?" The bartender responds, "no, it's more difficult, now. You have to make the horse cry. Then, you can take the jar of $10's." Mr. Blarney walks over to the horse, and after a short while, the horse is crying like a baby. Mr. Blarney is headed out the door with his prize, when the bartender asks, "what on Earth did you do to that horse?!?!?" Mr. Blarney explains, "two years ago, I told the harse that muh prick was bigger than his, and he laughed....Today, I showed 'im."

Never mind, it's just Cablevision, and their fantastic service!

Is the NRA server crashed? I can't even open NRAILA.org site.

The answer is, the Executive branch will do whatever the hell it wants to do during an emergency. They have the money, training, equipment and guns. After the emergency has subsided, we may challenge and sue based on what they did. But, unless you're willing to get into a shoot-out with PD, SP and NG, you're pretty much powerless to stop Christie or whatever raging tyrant takes office after Christie. As a troubling example, Katrina was August 2005. The criminal suit against the cop that shot the innocent civilians for trying to cross a "closed" bridge just ended in a conviction back in August 2011 (6 years). In a true, honest, SHTF situation, you need to count on strategic crossings being restricted/closed, government agents looking to seize weapons, involuntary closing of businesses, commandeering and rationing of strategic ordinances and supplies, mandatory evacuations and mandatory curfews or complete "lock-downs." If you're not ready for that, then you're not ready for a Katrina-esque disaster. The northeast is so spoiled with what it's received in terms of "natural disasters." I fear that we're due.

Taking a citizen's ammo (or any other property) and destroying it without compensation is likely a 5A/14A violation. I would suggest a lawyer. Federal statute allows for attorney's fees on recovery, so, the lawsuit wouldn't even cost the guy a penny.

Yeah, and the idiot thugs probably had .380 auto, .38 spl and .45 auto handguns to match the ammo. "Where do these plastic ones go?"

I only got 1:22 in and had to stop. The vid irratates the hell out of me, because the jerk-off mouths-off at just about every cop that stops him. He knows exactly what he's doing, and almost every time he spits back some punk-kid response "what am I doing, what are YOU doing?" Y'all may find it cute, I want to make it so the kid's mouth is wired shut.