Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About fslater

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular
  • Birthday 10/07/1954

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Bergen County
  • Home Range
    Cherry Ridge

Recent Profile Visitors

2,409 profile views
  1. To answer your question, I'm thinking yes, I'm sure "someone" has at some point. My question would be, why in God name would you? Especially in one of the most anti-gun states in the US.
  2. I found the form and your correct 3 vs 2 was my mistake. But I thought the gist of what Jeepster was saying was notarized references weren't required
  3. I got my FID a long time ago and haven't got a permit to purchase in a long time, but in both cases I had to give the name and address for 3 references, who were sent forms to fill out in regard to my character and required to send them back to my local PD notarized Maybe things . have changed since then? I didn't spend a lot of time looking for the requirement after reading your Where does this come from? reply, but if you look at page 1 "First Time Applicants for a Firearms Purchaser Identification Card and/or Handgun Purchase Permit" It references what I'm talking about. Microsoft Word - 1. WEB INSTRUCTIONS FOR FA APPS Bogdan 05.13.14 (njsp.org)
  4. This should be a talking point in the courts.... almost any gun control advocates argument could be shot down by using their own voting rights arguments against them. for instance.... requiring ID... requirement to get finger prints at the only (one) state sanctioned company. Charging $65 (probably higher since I got mine years ago) for getting digital finger prints when municipal PDs could do it free, in order to "QUALIFY TO EXERCIZE A RIGHT. Requiring 3 NOTORIZED references. What is the justification the state uses for requiring any references whatsoever when they run criminal back ground checks at 3 agencies federal (nics) state and local levels. Why (via references) does does a citizen have to prove anything in order to exercise a right, much less prove by requiring an unevolved 3rd party to extend an effort and pay a (notarizing) fee to do so The justification for issuing authorities IGNORING the 30 day issuing STATUTE is public safety, while gov beaver makes the state a sanctuary for ILLEGAL ALIENS. And Brags about giving ILEGAL ALIENS drivers licenses (state issued ID). I'm not a lawyer, but when I see all the precedents (the list goes on and or above and beyond what I've cited) set to forward radical liberal ideology I have to wonder why arguments are not made to expose laws that contradict the precedents they themselves made to forward their own agenda, in an apples to apples comparison.
  5. I would say the solution is simple: Put "Gun free zone" signs on "the public square". They're argument doesn't describe any other restricted location, therefore should only apply to the location they used to come to their decision
  6. I kind of wish it would go through. A case of that magnitude would certainly have to be taken up by the Supreme Court. Given what's in the Heller ruling and Scalia's explanation that it applied to all firearm's in common use I don't see any way they could not strike it down as Unconstitutional. If Scalia's explanation of, it applied to all firearm's in common use, were brought up in such a trail, I'm sure the Government/defense would cite that Scalia's explanation (that it applied to all firearm's in common use) end's with at the time. That may sound damning to the 2A's argument. BUT Common (civilian held) firearms at the time were identical (if not the exact same maker and model) to the Military/assault rifles used in the Revolutionary War. Looking at it from that perspective may even put a spotlight on the constitutionality of restrictions on actual M-16's and other actual assault weaponry. Thats a stretch but who know what can of worms could be opened in an AWB case with Constitutionalist vs ideological justices hearing it?
  7. I'd say the answer is no. It would (if the lower court finds in their favor) allow DD to to send material to NJ. But (if they have not already) NJ would make possession in NJ illegal, and open up a whole new legal fight. Due to the fact DD's case will be settled in Texas State court not Federal court it will set no precedence in NJ on any issue what so ever
  8. I'd think not. If I we're in the anti-gun/Constitution club of NJ (legislatures), I'd just claim it moves in and out it's a collapsible stock. They already make far more overreaching claims on less substantiated issues.
  9. Sanctuary city/state= DO NOT enforce laws that are issued by a higher jurisdiction, cooperate with their effort to enforce them or share any information of violations. I guess thats only OK if it benefits illegally being in the country. Americans aren't allowed that courtesy or even the right for their jurisdiction to proclaim sanctuary toward anything except in benefit to liberalism as far as New Jersey attorney general or governor beaver is concerned. Case in point, If an illegal alien (disqualified person) is arrested in a (illegal alien) sanctuary city on a gun violation, that city will make an extensive effort and is even bound by that jurisdictions law to keep it a secret from the Feds. If an American disqualified person is arrested in a (illegal alien) sanctuary city on a gun violation, that city will make an extensive effort to have any authority interested join in convicting that person
  10. I "kind of" agree with this. It is actually a law/statute. The thing is years ago a precedent was set when a judge in Camden ruled "public safety" took priority over that (30 day) statute, therefore the issuing authority did not have to issue or deny until the background check/investigation was complete. Thereby nullifying the statute... Giving giving the issuing authority card blanc to drag their feet or just not even start the process until they fell like it.
  11. There are several threads addressing this and have conflicting conclusions. I have found nothing in NJ statutes that says if you purchase, manufacture, acquire parts for and/or build a firearm (serialized or not) OUTSIDE NJ then bring it into NJ (as long as it is NJ complaint) it is illegal in NJ. I see nothing in any of the above responses that show it to be illegal unless NJ is claiming the reach of NJ law extends beyond its borders. I think NJ knows how far it can go in its anti-gun agenda and out right saying you can't bring a firearm that the federal government specifically say is legal (which as of now they do in the case of so called 80% lowers is) would open up a can of worms that they don't want opened at this time. This said, that won't stop them from arresting and prosecuting you, so unless your friend has the time and money to fight to the supreme court, I'd advise if he does bring this gun to NJ he keeps it under wraps. Its a damn shame, the US Supreme Court now has Constitutionalist Justices, and have all turned pussies and won't grant certiorari to 2A cases that are indisputably infringement to any sane rational person person.
  12. I take it in your statement is directly referring to hollow point necessity? But the contents of your statement ". in this forum, how many people used any weapon in last 30 years for self defense in home?" infers to there being no point, need or necessity to keeping a defensive firearm or any other defensive weapon in ones home at all What you said is what I would expect to see written by an anti-gun activist trolling the site.
  13. I've read the whole firearms statute more than once and seen nothing that says its not. It only addresses possession and transport.... Ironically if someone were to use it outside the home, I don't recall seeing anything in the statute that he could be additionally charged with (besides the shooting itself), only the possession. Like I said, the statute ONLY addresses possession. If there's no written law addressing usage what can they charge you with in regard to using it?
  14. I'm sure almost everyone here already knows this, but the precedent for ignoring the 30 day STATUTE (it is an actual statute) was set by a judge in Camden years ago who ruled public safety supersede the statute, and a card need not be issued or denied until the issuing authority has competed it investigation (without any time limitation what so ever). I got my Florida non-res CCW in 4 or 5 months less time than it took for my NJ resident Purchasers ID
  15. I've seen this before but gone to actual statutes to determine what I can and can't do. There is a statute with the wording of the top line though. The part I find interesting is where it says "securely tied package". I don't know what the courts would say (actually I do), but I think if you made that statement to any rational person (or even a liberal and didn't tell them what it was in regard to) and asked them if wrapped in brown paper with twine around it satisfied "securely tied package", they'd say G2G
  • Create New...