Jump to content

fslater

Members
  • Content Count

    289
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

61 Excellent

About fslater

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular
  • Birthday 10/07/1954

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,497 profile views
  1. With SCOTUS instructing lower courts to use one step vs two step scrutiny, we're going to see a mountain of case reconsiderations in lower courts
  2. They are thinking, logically, applying common sense in regard to their own desired end. Make it as difficult, time consuming and expensive, if not impossible for the average person in NJ to possess a firearm in NJ for any reason. I would say, that's the part no one says out loud, But actually Gov Beaver does on a regular basis and is proud of it at that.
  3. I'm thinking/hoping that when these infinite law suits, if not handled properly by lower courts and are clearly about laws trying to circumvent SCOTUS Just Cause ruling and make it to SCOTUS, those justices will grow warry of this scheme and make rulings so broadly as to preemptively negate those circumventing arguments
  4. This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored. The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application) In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not directly apply to and negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days. the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.
  5. NJSP have electronic fingerprints from one's original FID application. They require and additional copy of the same thing for a CCW upgrade?
  6. I may be wrong about this, or it may have been changed sense I first heard about it, But isn't it in NJ, you have to qualify with each and every particular firearm you intend/are authorized to carry and then that particular firearm is listed on your CCW credentials and you may only carry listed firearms? The reason I say this in this thread is each qualification would be accompanied by it's own fee. You have 5 guns you may wish to carry at different times. Would require 5 qualification ranges sessions with a separate fee for each.
  7. This sounds reticules, but I wonder if NJ is keeping it incase you use a reason other than self defense and they think they can keep "Justifiable Need" but only have to accept self defense as a qualifier? Like I said, sounds reticules, but this is NJ we're talking about. The other side of the coin may be, they don't intend to comply until the specific case of NJ is heard in court. The case everything is revolving around sets precedence, for future cases.... It does not however in itself strike down any other states laws that are in violation until they themselves are taken to court. It may create a slam dunk argument, but still has to be heard case by case, state by state to strike down a specific states violating law if the state pushes it to that point. This is the way I see it and I may be completely wrong. But what I am not wrong about is NJ will grab at every straw it possibly can to circumvent the California ruling
  8. Actually I'd like to see a case go to SCOUTS arguing that if the state requires training in order to exercise a right, they must provide that training at no cost. They shouldn't be able to attach any cost to the process required to exercise a constitutional right. In the case of vehicle inspection, you can go to a private inspection station, and pay to have your vehicle inspection done (typically meaning you failed at the state so your paying to get a passed sticker), Or go to a state inspection and the state fulfills the requirement at no cost. Only difference being in the case of vehicle inspection, they are negating a cost associated with a privilege vs they will not negate the cost in the same way to exercise a right. As I said at the beginning, I'd like to see this in court.
  9. I'm a bit hazy about this. NJ has and issued CCW for many years (we all know the story with that). Why all of a sudden, since the SCOTUS ruling is it so dangerous and important it keep people with CCW's out of these places? If it's so important now, why wasn't it important the day before SCOTUS made their opinion public? This is a rhetorical question. Just like, " NJ has and issued CCW for many years (we all know the story with that). We pretty much know that when only "the special people" had CCW's in NJ it didn't matter. Now that (maybe) average law abiding citizens will have access to CCW's, NJ has to find a way to only allow them to carry in the middle of an isolated field with no one within 5 miles. I wonder how many times this will have to go back to court before NJ is forced into true compliance with this ruling.
  10. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV. I'd say talk to a real lawyer about if "right of easement" to common property covers you on this. Be advised, even if it does, where firearms are concerned, police in NJ have no problem making wrongful arrests. If you want to spend a couple days in jail and spend $$$$'s to make an I'm right and you were wrong point, go for it. Personally I wouldn't do it. Also take into consideration, your HOA contract. Have you read it word for word end to end? I doubt they would state in it you are allowed to carry on common areas, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it specifically states you are not. That would not only be cause to have you arrested, but also throw out of your private community.
  11. I haven't purchased a new gun in over 5 years (I'M WAY OVER DUE!!!). At that time I think my NICS came back in an hour, give or take a couple minutes. So I agree with "If you consider a 1-2 day wait for an instant background check "back to work" As far as "I wish they would defund the NJSP Firearms Unit", be careful what you wish for. If that were to happen I'm 100% sure they would incorporate into that a system that would take NICS 6 months to come back. As far as defund the AG's office, I agree that would be great, but look at the AG. He'd file a discrimination lawsuit, claiming racial and religion discrimination!
  12. Not sure if this answers your question, but in the case of my clearance, no. I needed a background/security check when I initially got my burglar alarm installers license. The state police did the investigation, but to the best of my knowledge they did it without using NICS. Maybe for other things they do, but not in this case
  13. The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to put the donut down and do some work) In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent?
  14. This may be, but are they exempt from ATF 4473? Are they filling out ATF 4473's for every gun purchased at a "buyback"? If not, if one of these guns were lost and used in a crime, would it not be traced back to the person who surrendered it at a "buyback" as the last owner (who would not have reported it stolen or out of his ownership, prior to it's being traced for criminal usage)?
  15. Why aren't buybacks not a violation of federal law in that no ATF 4473 is filled out, no background check for the receiving party is done on every firearm transferred, they're done without an FFL present? LEO"s are required to do all these things when purchasing a firearm. Is there an exemption when doing it in a mass purchasing/buyback event that I don't know about in FEDERAL LAW? The way I see it, it's a purchase and a transfer no different than any other. Even the event name is A LIE! You can't "buyback" something that never belonged to you!
×
×
  • Create New...