BRaptor

Looks like the JC is going to be the proud new owner of my pretty, pink, Cobra FS 380. What a bunch of maroons.

Me an' my girl on the bow of a boat in Lake George, NY. This will change once I get a picture of us shooting together.

I'm glad you didn't take my "irony" joke as an insult. Lawyers can't know everything about all laws. I'm with you about 2A representation, it's VERY close to my heart.

I laughed a bit at this part. It's a little ironic. ETA: I don't even have a good guess to the answer of this question. Edited further to add: Ok, so I can't just make a smart-assed comment and walk away. I looked a little. The NRA-ILA website summary of Federal Firearms Laws says: I'm 95% sure that NJ has a similar exemption (including an exemption from having to obtain an FID or PPP or "registering" the transaction with Mother NJ). I'm also 95% sure FL has a similar exemption. So, I would assume that obtaining the firearms, personally, in FL, as a result of a bequest, would count as lawfully acquiring the firearms in another state, even if he's a NJ resident. Thus, transportation into and possession in NJ are also potentially lawful (assuming he abides by Fed. and NJ laws of transporting, etc). He still needs an FID to purchase or acquire handgun ammunition in NJ, so might as well get an FID.

Wow...there it is. Thank you! That question has been irritating me for the longest time. My search didn't include "residence." I assumed since they used "address" everywhere else in the statutes and codes, they would continue with the same vocabulary.

I searched the statutes and administrative code. There is nothing about changing the address on your FID if you move. There's nothing about matching the address of an FID and DL. Nothing. The statutes and code are clear that a COE and PPP must have your "permanant" address, but there is nothing about matching, comparing to DL or changing addresses to match. There are statutes that say your address information needs to be updated on your DL and with the DMV. So, the legislature knows how to write a law like that if they wanted to. But, I haven't found it. From where is this "rule" coming?!?!?!

Our of curiosity, can you provide the statute or administrative guideline that says the FID and DL must match? I ask because NJSA 2C:58-3 says: Thus, in my line of thinking, the FID is valid and usable even with a different address than the one on the DL. Perhaps the reality is just that no FFL will transfer a firearm to you unless your FID and DL match?

Christ, not this statute, again. I'M OUT!

HA! Not for my wife. I also think a person has an absolute moral right to defend their lives with whatever weapon available. But, I don't know if the law backs up my morality. So, morally, I completely support your position. Shoot the BG and let the justice system work it out. Now, can we find a legal argument to support our moral position?

This question that Mike first posted. I'm willing to accept that the answer may be, "shoot and pray" that the prosecutor has some common sense. But, I was hoping there might be a provision in the statutes or caselaw providing an explicit exemption.

I read that post. I didn't need "your emphasis," but thank you, anyway. I see nothing in your righteously emphasized statute which excludes prosecution under NJSA 2C:58-3(a) or (b): NJSA 2C:39-10(a): So, yes, REALLY, I don't think there has been a completely satisfactory answer. I don't think there are boogie men out there waiting to clap cuffs on someone involved in a justified shoot. But, I think an over-zealous prosecutor could make life very difficult and unpleasant for you if you were involved in a justified shoot with someone else's gun (even if it's your spuose's). I think the laws are confounding, convoluted and contradictory. I also think it's fun to bat around questions like this and see if we can come up with a good answer. The question doesn't hurt, and if we can't come up with an answer, fine, but don't bash me and the original poster, because you're so damned cocksure about yourself and your position. If you're done with this thread, feel free to bow out and stop reading it.

Hate to be Debbie downer, here. But with information like that, you may be best advised to take more precautions to secure your property from tresspassing children before you begin shooting. If one of Asshat Vinny's kids gets a bullet wound, your world will get turned upside down in a civil suit.

No, I don't. You are my neighbor. I "love" my neighbors. I respect my neighbors, behave civilly toward toward them and try not to do anything that would cause harm to them--directly or indirectly. But, I would kill for my brothers (of which there are three, and all are not of blood relation to me).

Link to News Story The Newark City Council unanimously approved a new ordinance that would require certain restaurants to post armed guards after 9 p.m. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's not "Joe Citizen," but Newark is beginning to get the idea that arms in the hands of the good guys might actually REDUCE crime. :thsmiley_deadhorse: Or the city council is trying to drive businesses to close at 9 p.m..

I agree with you. The people who are responding "just shoot him" are only thinking about the specific moment, not the events leading up to that moment. Of course, your wife is going to shoot an intruder if she has to, no matter who "owns" the gun. But why do people have a problem with you asking a question before that moment comes? You're only trying to make a justified shooting as legally simple as possible. Of course, 4 pages of responses and I don't think we've found a good answer, yet.

This statement from the court is rather strange, especially regarding the porch and other appertinances. It would appear that NJ's "castle doctrine" is a bit more in favor of the home-owner than the common law castle doctrine, which generally does not permit lethal force when an intruder is standing "on the threshold," and especially not when an intruder is on your porch. This goes directly back to the fundamental concerns of the Miranda Court. One of the biggest concerns of the Miranda Court was one's 5A right to not be compelled to be a witness against themselves along with the inherently compelling/coercive nature of being questioned by police. It's not an arrest thing, necessarily, it's a coercive situation thing. The officers were correct to Mirandize the defendant once they realized they were going to question him about a crime the he may have committed, because their questoning, at the station, has been found time and time again to be an inherently coercive situation where one may feel compelled to answer the police questions. Thus, a defendant needs to knowingly and intelligently waive his 5A right to remain silent before the evidence can be used in court. The Mirandizing was probably necessary to keep the confession from being suppressed.

Hey Mike, Want to Fu$# with the NJSP a little? Do this (***this is not legal advice, and is probably a bad idea for you to actually do***)(also, be cautious of OGAM): 1) File a COE for a "one-half, undivided interest" in each long-arm to your wife (one at a time). That way, you are both "tenants in common" for the long arms. That means you both own the long arms and have the rights to fully "use and enjoy" each long arm without having to get the other's permission or without them needing to be in the vicinity. 2) File PPP's for a "one-half, undividied interest" in each pistol to your wife. That way, you are both "tenants in common" for the handguns. That means you both own the pistols and have the rights to fully "use and enjoy" each pistol without having to get the other's permission or without them needing to be in the vicinity. So, technically, after those "transfers," you guys both own any HD firearms and it doesn't matter who uses them in an HD situation. P.S. If you actually go forward with this really crazy/bad idea, I would be curious to know what the NJSP or NJ Attorney General had to say about the transfers after they receive the paper work.

Ok, Paul is out, Ray is MIA (presumed captured and resisting by all means available to him). So, I'll throw a wild-assed guess as GRIZ's question. The M14?

Perhaps the zombies finally got to 'im?

Seems as you've stumped everyone, I'm going to throw my guess/incomplete answer out and see if you allow it to qualify. I'm guessing it's a S&W 9mm model. But, I couldn't tell you which or when it was made.

lol...never mind...again.

This.

You've been PM'd.

Wolfy, If you're serious, I've been receiving special offers from Toshiba for their laptops. RIDICULOUS prices, like $330 for a 15.6" screen, AMD Dual Core Processor, 350 GB harddrive and 3 GB of RAM and Windows 7 installed. If you like, I'll let you know if I get another offer from them.

The NJ Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) has a letter from the NJ State Police addressed to all town chiefs of police clearly stating that OGAM does not limit the number of pistol purchase permits for which one can apply and be issued. Quoted from the bottom of page 5 of the letter: Here is the link to their topic on this forum.