galapoola

SCOTUS

Well IL went as far as court of appeals and they got 180 days to craft a system. DC lost also at appeals and DC was pretty quick, then re-interpreted the ruling and it took a few years and another judge if I recall. My guess is NJ will do what they did with stun guns, they issued a one pager to all PD's noting the change. When I emailed my local chief he was aware of the letter and was vague on it's practical application. Couldn't nail the guy down. I went as far as providing a scenario. What if I had on my person a concealed stun gun, for all lawful purposes and an officer was knowledgeable of this, would I be arrested? He couldn't or wouldn't answer. I understand that they can't give legal advise but come on. The first application after a win at SCOTUS will have to go before a superior judge for issuance, that's the law currently. He/she would have to accept self defense, if SCOTUS spells that out in the opinion, and then accept that as a justifiable need. No need to craft a new law. The legislature can pile on new laws that make it more expensive, more time consuming, more qualifying and begin to spell out where you can carry.

NJ AG has never had to argue before SCOTUS on 2A before. They had stacked courts before and didn't even send the A team. Anyone remember the valley girl that argued for the state the last time. They can't roll out the usual tropes and wink wink at the judge. There is a very good chance that this will be heard and they are without a viable constitutional plan.

What about the full auto Thompson BB rifles on the boardwalk, you know, shoot out the red star?

I have a buddy who pulled a travel trailer into Canada in the 80's or 90's. At the boarder he declared the shotgun which at the time was OK without paperwork I recall (may be wrong). The boarder official was most interested in handguns. I'd take the sage advice of shipping to yourself from lower 48 to yourself at an AK address. The ammo you can buy at the first store you find or ship it separately.

It's death by 1000 cuts. Look at CA, they are constantly introducing firearm bills. There is no end in sight because the end game has always been to legislate the 2A out of existence. In dark rooms any of these guys would admit their preference, no gun ownership by private citizens. Everything they do is reasonable and for the children, same tropes, same playbook, different day.

means all the justices will review the case, it goes before every sitting judge in the 9th circuit court of appeals

they may be getting this through committee so they can add it as a rider to the tax or budget. tax and budget will not get 60 votes in senate, too many democrats who oppose anything republicans do not to mention demonizing current president. If there is any defense spending in a bill, CCW reciprocity can be added like they tried with the Thune bill some years back. again, budget allows for reconciliation (51 votes like AHCA) so this bill can be added and ride the coat tails of a budget bill easily. then we'd need only 50 senators min (VP is tie breaker). this may be the timing and strategy to thwart the schummers of the world

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State I live in NJ and have a permit from "a State", in my case FL, the "a State" is key in my mind

Well the Toms River PD chief got back with a positive answer, and I quote: "yes that exact directive was sent out to my officers on October 24th. You will not be charged for possession alone." The scenario I gave was possession for all legal purposes, concealed carry, officer detects, now what? I'm happy with the response. I wanted to know if he had a directive to the rank and file in light of the memo from the NJ AG. At least if anyone in my family is somehow stopped and the officer is not in the know we can say, hey go talk to your chief, I did, he said simple possession is not an arrest-able offense.

I got a response from Ocean County prosecutors office, gave a very lawyer-y response. Got a response from the chief at my hometown PD, he gave a PD response. No one wants to go on record, they sidestep the question and appear to answer a question I didn't ask. From my buddy who is a prosecutor, he laughed and said that is typical. No one in law enforcement wants to give advise or let too many cats out of the bag. He predicts they'll be selling these at the boardwalk next summer. My only goal was to find out if there was a directive from the chief and/or the county. I even asked in a way that would not require a legal advise. I only wanted to know if the patrolmen and prosecutors are aware of the change and know not to arrest for simple possession, even pointed out possession for all legal purposes. My gut feeling is they know and won't make a public comment for fear that doing so will embolden people to exercise a freedom. NJ law enforcement is stuck in weird mindset. They see free America as an aberration when in fact it is NJ.

Someone pointed me to an article posted here in which State v Kelly was referenced. Halfway down we read " We know that under State v. Kelly, self defense does not count as a "lawful use" under 2C:39-5(d)" The gist of the opinion is that only part of stung guns was struck down. Apparently there is more than one way to skin a cat and NJ left something for the prosecutors.The Consent Order didn't cover possession of weapons so therefore there is an avenue to arrest and prosecute??? If the case mentions Heller and if stun guns are covered because they are weapons and if Heller says a primary reason for firearms is self defense, then I'm not sure why an "intended use" comes into question. The only use for a stun gun is for self defense. Regardless of State v Kelly, Heller and it's incorporation to the states by McDonald overrides any dumb NJ case law.

I'm guessing that if tasers are now protected in NJ under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment, they must be an "arm" for "bearing". The NJAG decided not to fight the federal suit after the SCOTUS ruling dropped in 2016. The precedent now is that "arms" are not to be "infringed" via NJ's laws. Heller said any weapon in common use is protected and there is no technology limit (i.e. freedom of speech is covered on TV even though we didn't have TV in the 1700's) So . . . a handgun carried as an "arm" should be treated similar to a taser. To keep and bear a taser (allowed by NJ) should be the gateway to firearm keep and bear. Maybe Alan Gura and/or 2nd Amendment Foundation is already on this. They may just need a vehicle to use in order to start things.

Bought a Pulse at Java Run Wholesale, try the discount code REG10 for a 10% discount. They sell on Amazon for less but Amazon hasn't lifted the NJ restriction. With the discount it's about the same price.

Cool, that's a family owned business, good for them.

I'm sure big box stores need to pass it by legal, may take a while. FFL's may take a wait and see. You guys remember the Auto Ordnance M1 Carbine fiasco? Dealers began selling these because of a letter from the NJSP. A bunch were sold and in people's possession when someone from the NJAG office jumped in. They ordered all the rifles returned. If I recall the NJAG office was not aware until someone asked them. That's what we are up against in NJ. We really need full consent from all parties, they all have to be on the same page, which I believe they are.

" possession on school grounds " is not in your home or place of business so it's everywhere else. " no permit or license will be required to obtain or possess a stun gun " is pretty clear. NJ law is famous for the way they skirt around the common sense plain meaning of things so without actually saying, "hey you can possess a stun gun everywhere except schools for its intended legal purpose, namely self defense", this may the best we can hope for. Just look at the way they carved out AR-15 possession, the statute is still there but the NJSP responded that the evil Colt semi and the ones we see at a NJ FFL are not the same and therefore legal to possess. It's the bass ackwards way they do things

I reached out to the NJSP via their website and was redirected to the Citizens Services and Relations Office of the Attorney General. The director wrote back and here is the response, BTW the memo he refers to is the same two pager that has been linked to http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/New-Jersey-stun-gun.pdf That should cement things, possession and carry per the NJAG is legal. I have a request into my local PD asking pretty much the same thing, namely do the officers on the job know about the consent decree and have they been advised not to arrest a non felon 18+ year old citizen in possession of a stun gun. Here's the email from the AG: Mr. : As of October 22, 2017, in accordance with a Consent Order entered in the United States District Court, prior statutory prohibitions against selling or possessing stun guns in New Jersey have been declared unconstitutional. By virtue of this ruling, New Jersey is now on similar footing as 39 other states that allow stun guns with limited or no restrictions so, unless there is a change to the law, no permit or license will be required to obtain or possess a stun gun. However, the State Police have proposed a rule, expected to be adopted in December, prohibiting minors under the age of 18 from obtaining or possessing stun guns. Law enforcement has been directed to adhere to this rule, pending adoption and thereafter. In addition to the proposed regulations, current statutory provisions that establish restrictions on stun guns remain in force and effect, including laws that prohibit felons and incompetent persons from possessing stun guns, possession on school grounds, possession for an unlawful purpose, and possession under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for such lawful uses as a stun gun may have. At this time, nothing has been published on the State Police website regarding stun guns. Regarding your question about all law enforcement officers having knowledge of the change in status of stun guns, please refer to the memo discussed in our previous correspondence. The purpose of that memo was to inform law enforcement throughout the state of the changes based on the Consent Order. I hope that this has been helpful. Sincerely, Jeffrey E. Lenox Director Citizens Services and Relations Office of the Attorney General 25 Market Street P.O. Box 080 Trenton, NJ 08625-0080 (609) 984-5828 www.facebook.com/NJAttorneyGeneralsOffice www.twitter.com/NewJerseyAG www.instagram.com/njattorneygeneralsoffice

I wrote both senators and my rep, here is the one I crafted for the two democrats, the one for my republican representative was changed accordingly: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 - Hudson, NC Sen. -------------, Ideally NJ would honor the plain and known meaning of the Second Amendment. It is extremely ironic that NJ was the first state to ratify the Bill of Rights which includes Amendment the Second while today we enjoy the most unconstitutional firearm laws. I do not see any relief in the immediate future so national reciprocity is the best low hanging fruit available. NJ judges do not sign off on applications due to the “justifiable need” clause of the carry permit statute. The law is stacked against us. No one meets the standard which in itself is unconstitutional. I do not need a reason to exercise a right protected by the Bill of Rights, the right protected by the Amendment is reason enough. The leadership of New Jersey Second Amendment Society has posted that Rep. Hudson's bill will be changed to include wording that specifically allows NJ residents to use a permit from another state. So for instance a person like myself who has passed a federal NICs background check, taken the training, paid the fees and received a FL and VA permit to carry a handgun, can use these permits in NJ without fear of felony arrest. I carry in 30+ states when I travel for work and pleasure. Not once have I become the person that opponents of this bill have characterized. There have been no wild shootouts or blood in the streets. I have not brandished my handgun and scared people. The weapon has been safely concealed and used for legal purposes while driving, shopping, eating in restaurants, taking a walk, working, site seeing and similar. Nothing will change to endanger the lives of the innocent with passage of this bill. Law abiding gun owners are the safest citizens in the USA. We have to be in order to keep our rights. Now I know that as a Democrat from the northeast you are not predisposed to support anything that favors the 2nd Amendment. I believe I can make that broad brush stroke based on what I’ve heard and read. None the less, you are an intelligent individual that should rise above the party plank and support the Constitution. We the law abiding citizens of NJ would like to be included in the benefits of the national reciprocity bill when it becomes law. Your help on this matter is greatly appreciated and would go a long way for continued support. We also would like to see you sign on as a co-sponsor of any Senate version if you haven't already. Thanks again. Sincerely,

I agree but with the 10 Amendment argument with this caveat, they'd have to explain why they are misusing "state rights" with their tortured explanation of the 2nd Amendment.

Yeah, I got my pistol permits from TRPD in less than 30 days, I applied in November, small reward I suppose. With that said the whole process is an abomination. We should never have to get a permission slip from anyone to own, buy or use any firearm for legal purposes. When people from other countries come to the US and comment on how free we are, that's how I feel when I travel and talk to people from free America. I carry in states that have reciprocity with FL & VA, I keep loaded in the glove box or center column in states I can't carry but allow this form of car carry (i.e SC). We as residents of NJ should always feel like a dude who lived in Poland under the USSR and just moved to the US. Never forget how our necks are stood on by the authorities here in NJ

Finally got to look at the SCOTUS opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf Of interest and what we all seem to understand (but liberals do not) is this: It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. District of Columbia v. Heller , concurring in judgment vindicates the “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Caetano’s en­counter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the con­ nection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to pre­vent. I know without a specific opinion telling a jurisdiction to honor Heller as to carry, this alone is not enough, but . . . Any carry civil case can cite this and run it through the system and see if the lower courts would side with us. Judges after all hate to be told they are wrong by another court. Judges don't want to be bitch slapped by SCOTUS. This remand poses a genuine opportunity and being as all 8 justices agreed, it looks promising. And this woman was outside her house/home so no more saying carry is an indoor 2nd Amendment activity.

the Florida license does not say "non-resident", unlike VA which says "non-resident". Neither of which matters, a FL permit issued to someone from outside the state is good in FL and 30 or so other states. Some states like PA have reneged recently and as a NJ resident my FL permit is not recognized any longer.

Someone should apply for a NJ carry permit and in the "letter of need" cite this court's 8-0 decision and state you want to carry for all legal purposes including self defense. Quote Samuel Alito, "If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano, (i.e. carrying a stun gun on her person outside her home) then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities (i.e. NJ legislators) who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe,"

http://news.gnom.es/pr/saf-funds-challenge-to-new-jersey-carry-law Interesting news, SAF is going to help Nappen with his fees challanging justifiable need. If they use a broad compalint to include anyone who want's to use self defense, we all win.