Jump to content

PDM

Members
  • Content Count

    620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Everything posted by PDM

  1. For those that think this bill allows NJ residents with out of state permits to carry in NJ, what do you think "other than the state of residence of the person" means? THAT is plain as day. The entire reciprocity arrangement in the bill only applies when you are outside your state of residence. It is that simple. If you think otherwise please explain what the language I just quoted means. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm sick and tired of these pie in the sky interpretations and predictions. Remember a few years back, after Heller and McDonald, when everyone was saying "just wait until the Supremes slap NJ down." How did that work out for us? I don't mean to be a pessimist -- the Trump win is a huge, huge step forward for gun rights -- but the reality in this state is what it is and there will be many roadblocks and much time that passes before NJ is forced to accept carry, unless there is a clear and unambiguous Federal carry permit enacted (which most 2A advocates don't seem to want and hasn't been proposed).
  2. You know, you are correct Princetonian. I think I misread that langugae. It's either or (the words after the "or" would pick up people in constitutional carry states). BUT, the subsequent bolded language -- "other than the state of residence of the person" clearly means that reciprocity doesn't apply when you are in your home state of residence, meaning you can't rely on a FL permit in NJ under this statute.
  3. "Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided 10 in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped 20 or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person..." The bold language is the problem. It explicitly only applies to resident carry permits, and the law doesn't apply within your own state. Zero help to us in NJ even if for those with non-resident permits from other states. And if you think the NJ legislature is going to cave on NJ permits to possess in order to raise revenue I have a traffic-jammed bridge to sell you. NJ will threaten, harrass, detain and incarcerate out of staters with permits and take their chances in court, or just ban carry altogether to remove themselves from the statute. The state will never, ever back down on this issue. The only hope now is the renewed, long term hope of Supreme Court relief after (if) Trump appoints two or more 2A friendly justices. That is going to be a long, long haul. At least 2-3 years before we have 2 or more new justices. Then "Drake 2" will need to be filed and wend its way through the courts again and we can then hope that the Supreme Court decides to take the carry case and rule in our favor. Think 5-10 years.
  4. Check out the crime statistics on the NJ State Police site: http://www.njsp.org/ucr/crime-reports.shtml I don't know how much is gun specific, but you will see that the murders in the largest 6 NJ urban areas (11% of the state population) account for 67% of the murders!
  5. Well, whatever happens -- I have been on a natural high for the past few days. I pretty much gave up any hope of change on 2A issues in NJ after the S Ct declined to hear Drake. But this election is a game changer. A complete repudiation of progressive overreach. I am sure you are all right that a national carry permit will never get off the ground because in most other states people see the federal government as a bigger danger than the state. I guess being in NJ changes one's perspective on that. But I eagerly await a reciprocity bill. It will be fun to see Senator Whineberg's reaction and will be quite interesting to see what comes next. Whatever that is it will be better than what we have now.
  6. That's really funny. Governor Kripsy Kreme is going to BE the federal government (Attorney General, director of DHS or something else). NJ won't have a choice. And if they arrest someone with a federal permit, that person can go to federal court of a writ of mandamus or other relief forcing the state to obey federal law. It would be delicious, and no more or less of a sh*t show than having NJ state police ignore the federal reciprocity law and arrest people with out of state permits.
  7. Then I'm afraid you didn't read or understand what I wrote. A national permit could be put in place that does not impact existing state constitutional carry, state permits, or state reciprocity WHATSOEVER. It would be completely optional for those that want it. If you live in Vt and don't want a federal permit, fine. If you live in PA and want to rely on your PA permit and state reciprocity agreements, fine. But if someone in PA or Florida or Vermont wants a permit that is definitively valid in all 50 states with no questions, they could also obtain a federal permit IN ADDITION to their state permit. And someone in NJ could obtain a federal permit that is valid in all other states AND -- unlike under the reciprocity arrangements -- is valid in NJ as well. If a subsequent Democrat controlled congress and Democrat president repealed the federal permit, nothing would change from the way it is today. And keep in mind that any law -- including a reciprocity law -- can also be repealed in the future. A national carry law would be less subject to challenge than a reciprocity law, would shift the challenge burden to the states, and would give us relief until, hopefully, we have a supreme court that can resolve the issue and protect our rights once and for all.
  8. I hear you, but I guess our disagreement is whether non-discretionary training, proficiency testing and background checks for carry outside the home violate the Second Amendment. I don't think they do, and I don't think they are a bad idea. And I also disagree that NJ will solve its own problems. It won't. Just like any civil rights violation, the federal government needs to get involved. And we now have a federal government that will be willing to do so.
  9. I appreciate the responses, even though I didn't get the legal analysis I was hoping for. What do you think Wineberg and friends will do the day after a national reciprocity bill passes? Do you really think they will go quietly into the night.? They will point out that people with permits in states that require zero or virtually zero training (hello Florida and New Hampshire) could carry in NJ (and they will have a point). They will propose and eventually pass an emergency bill banning carry outright in NJ. As anyone who has read the reciprocity bills knows, reciprocity only would apply in a state that allows concealed carry. NJ currently allows concealed carry officially, although we know that as a result of "justifiable need" it doesn't allow it at all. So, a bill banning concealed carry (perhaps they would craft some new separate law not written as a concealed carry that would allow retired cops to still carry) effectively would nullify a reciprocity bill altogether. But, but you will say -- the SUPREME COURT!! Yeah, good luck with that. A "Drake II" case would need to be brought in Federal court seeking to strike down the outright ban. Admittedly, it would be a stronger, perhaps much stronger case than the Drake case because outright bans have already been struck down (in the 7th circuit) and in Drake the state had the cover of the "justifiable need" standard and was able to argue that there isn't really a ban in place. But still -- BEST CASE -- it will take another 2-3 years for such a case to make it through the District Court and Third Circuit Court of Appeals (which I strongly suspect would find some way to uphold the ban), and then we'd have to hope that the Supreme Court would grant cert and finally strike the law down; no guarantee whatsoever that would happen, even with Trump appointed justices on the Court. A much, much better alternative is a National Carry Permit. Let's stop beating around the bush and making equal protection arguments. The right to bear arms -- carry and possess outside the home -- is a fundamental, civil right. To the extent states don'e recognize that right, it should be protected by the Federal government. National "constitutional" permitless carry is not in the cards because, no matter how much people like to simplistically scream the phrase "shall not be infringed", that is not what Heller says. Background checks and training requirements for carry outside the home, as part of a shall issue system (meaning no discretion outside of the objective criteria) would be upheld by the Supreme Court and every other court in the country. A National Federal Carry Permit law could be crafted to meet the highest state standard -- eg NJ's -- requiring a background check and real training (say 10--20 hours) and a proficiency test. It could also leave all existing, more permissive state laws in place to avoid any 10th amendment issue (eg, states like Vermont and Alska etc. would keep constitutional carry in their states) and also leave in place all existing interstate reciprocity. So absolutely no one would be compelled to apply for a Federal permit. But for those who want peace of mind in being able to carry in all 50 states, AND for those in may/no issue states like NJ, they would be able to get a carry permit as well. Such a law would be much less subject to challenge than a reciprocity law because it would 1) be predicated on the Second Amendment, incorporating all of the "reasonable restrictions" blessed by Heller; 2) would be politically hard to oppose because it would incorporate all of the objective criteria imposed by states like NJ (it would just eliminate the farcical "justifiable need standard"; and 3) would protect a civil right without infringing on state's rights by not forcing any state to adopt less stringent licensing requirements from other states. It would also PUT THE BURDEN ON NJ to go to court to challenge the law, rather than forcing citizens to go to court to challenge a ban. That is what we should all be advocating for. NOT a reciprocity bill that 1) won't help us, 2) will be subject to some very valid states' rights challenges and 3) would be easily circumvented in states like NJ and NY who would just ban carry outright.
  10. Mmmm, not I don't. I understand the analogy and why their are good arguments for carry reciprocity. I wasn't questioning that. What I don't understand is why the drafters of the legislation excluded residents of a state from enjoying reciprocity in their home state with respect to an out of state permit.
  11. True. But under the law there would be lots of people from other states walking around NYC packing, thus causing Bloomberg's to have a stroke in any event.
  12. I get the states' rights issue, but forcing a state to accept a permit from another state is itself a states' rights issue. What I don't get is how allowing a resident of the state to avail himself of the law makes the states' rights issue any more severe. And the resident had to cross state lines (literally or through the mail) to get a permit from another state so there is a nexus to interstate commerce. In other words -- it is definitely a states' rights issue to begin with, so why discriminate against residents of a state who need to rely on the law.
  13. With Trump in office and Republican control over house and senate, the chances of passage of a national carry reciprocity bill now seems quite high. There are currently 3 or 4 proposed bills. They are all substantially similar -- and all specifically provide that reciprocity doesn't apply to a person in their state of residence. For example, if such a bill passed, permit holders resident in any other state could carry in NJ but a NJ resident with an out of state permit could not. That is an insane result and it would be interesting to see what would happen. My question is -- why? Why do each of these bills have this same limitation? Tenth Amendment challenge? Granting reciprocity to non-NJ residents would itself already be subject to Tenth Amendment challenge? Is it because the commerce clause wouldn't apply? I am a lawyer but haven't been able to figure it out. Does anyone here understand the issue?
  14. Why do you have to accept her premise? We don't and shouldn't measure the value of rights on an accountant's ledger. Cost/benefit analysis has its place, but if you could indisputably prove that banning all guns would save one additional life (which you can't) would that justify it? How about repealing the 4th amendment? How many felony criminals are set free because of some minor due process violation in the course of a search, or failure to properly read a miranda right, etc? Answer: quite a few, many of whom go on to kill, maim, rape, etc all of which could have been prevented but for a technical 4th amendment argument? So my first response is: "I don't know and I don't care." The Second Amendment and gun ownership has nothing whatsoever to do with loving or liking guns. It has to do with the fundamental, basic human right of self-preservation, and the worldview adopted by the founders of this country and embodied in our Constitution that gives individuals the right to control and preserve their own lives and property with as little government interference as possible. I won't hand the keys to my life over to Joe Smith the cop or Loretta Whineberg or Steve Sweeney and rely on them to keep me and my family safe. That is my job and my responsibility, and if that entails some larger societal cost so be it. That said, if you conduct a cost-benefit analysis in this country it becomes pretty apparent that the 8-9 thousand firearm related homicides in this country disproportionately occur in certain urban areas and that far, far more people use guns defensively (and we can take the government's own number of 80,000 DGUs without relying on Gary Kleck's much higher number) than criminally. Finally, I don't have the numbers on Australia, but as someone pointed out it is a different society, and different culture, and crime rates there were already falling before the ban. What is more relevant to ordinary people is overall crime rates. Look at the UN crime statistics and you will see that although the US' homicide rate is 3-4x higher than most Western countries rates of robbery, assault, rape, etc are higher -- often significantly higher in many countries, including the UK (rate per 100,000 people): Assault Robbery Rape Homicide US: 232.1 102.0 36.5 3.9 (60% involve firearms) UK: 649.1 87.5 51.0 0.9 (7% involve firearms) France: 354.5 177.9 19.0 1.2 (firearm data not available)
  15. I'm not a new poster, been lurking here for at least 5 or 6 years. I just don't waste my time posting all that much. And I was pretty gung ho until the 3d circuit decision in Drake and the Supreme Ct denial of cert. In my view that pretty much put the nail in the coffin in terms of serious change in this state.
  16. Mr. Newtonian is far from a troll. He is spot on and spouting some serious common sense. How much success has Steve Lonegan had in this state? In the words of Dean Wormer: Zero point zero (other than his election as mayor of Bogota). A dyed in the wool, "true conservative" doesn't stand a rats chance of being elected statewide. I am very sceptical about the 1 million NJ gun owners claim, but if they indeed exist they have never swung and never will swing an election in this state. A moderate Republican, or a "RINO" like Christie, is probably the best we can do statewide. The real problem is the legislature. Without getting at least one chamber under Republican control nothing will get better from a 2A perspective and things are quite likely to get worse. I have absolutely no idea what it would take to accomplish that.
  17. Applied first week of July and got my permit last week. Provided a copy of my FID card, not FL non-resident permit.
  18. I have noticed that when the most vocal "anti" politicians in this state -- Weinberg, Fulop and others -- are confronted with the illogic of their position on carry they deflect, distort, evade, but will simply not give an honest answer to a very simple question: If a person satisfies all of the requirements in the statute -- background checks, fingerprints, training, testing, references -- all of which are repeatedly demanded by gun control advocates, why can't anyone ever obtain a permit (other than retired cops and people who are politically connected). I recently had some back and forth with Senator Weinberg on this on Facebook and she agreed that permits shouldn't be subject to unreasonable delay, obviously disingenuously referring to permits to purchase. But she simply won't answer the real question regarding a permit to possess. I was at a panel discussion at Fairleigh Dickinson where Fulop, when asked the same question, sort of shrugged his shoulders and said "its a valid point of view but not one I share" with no real explanation. The reason they won't answer honestly is that their position is so illogical and indefensible and contrary to their own demands (training, background checks, etc). AND, I have found that most non-gun owners who aren't die hard antis believe that people can obtain carry permits and are quite surprised to learn that its impossible. Friends of mine who are in favor of assault weapons bans, magazine limitations, and other restrictions have often agreed that people who have training, are tested, and undergo background checks should be able to have a carry permit. They are even more shocked when they learn about the 7 year felony sentences that have been imposed for inadvertent violations. So, bottom line, I really think a much larger segment of the population than we imagine would support removing the justifiable need standard if they were educated and cared. Getting people educated could be addressed by a smart advertising campaign if funds were available. Getting people to care enough to change their vote is the much bigger problem.
  19. Will do. I wish you the best of luck. It stinks that one has to resort to legal gymnastics to have the state recognize a basic right. And of course, legal arguments aside, what NJ has done here is an example of the worst kind of legislative and judicial abuse imaginable.
  20. Stephen -- I reread your complaint and took a look at the Palmetto case and am struggling to understand this. Your argument above -- which is the only real argument you have (as you acknowledged the 2A count is really surplusage in light of Drake) -- is the "Ultra Vires" count in the Complaint, correct? In the Palmetto case, the court held that the word "person" as used in the NFA had to be read to include a trust, otherwise the exception swallows the rule. In other words, an individual can't do an end run around the statute by creating a trust to buy machine guns. In this carry case, the term "justifiable need" is not defined in the statute, and both the state courts and the administrative code have defined it as requiring "imminent threats yada yada". Unlike the NFA provision cited in Palmetto, where the intent of the statute was perfectly clear (ie individuals can't buy machine guns without complying the the statute), the intent of the NJ code on carry/possession outside the home is not clear at all. So the NJ courts and the administrative code clarified it. They did so in a way we don't like and in a way that severely limits and arguably eviscerates the statute, but I fail to see how the holding in Palmetto is analogous or helpful. It would be interesting to know if there is other precedent for the "ultra vires" argument being used by a court to strike down an administrative code provision or state court interpretation of a statute. I am familiar with the ultra vires concept being used in the corporate context but not as applied to administrative law (but would love to be educated on it). I hope I am wrong and missing something, but this seems extremely weak. Nonetheless I wish you luck,
  21. i'll continue to pay my nra and anjrpc dues, try to introduce as many people as i can to shooting and explain the overall 2a position to them. i will maintain an open mine about the pos6 lawsuit and if i become convinced that it isnt a waste of money for people other than two of the plaintiffs ill make a donation. thats my plan for now. what i wont do is develop a false sense of hope about something that isnt based in reality and has no solid legal basis.
  22. i wrote the post above with a heavy heart but i do believe it is important to be realistic. "What's your plan" isnt always a meanignful statement. Sometimes there can be no plan because of the reality on the ground. The argument that NJ's justifiable need standard violates the 2A is a dead letter in the 3rd circuit after Drake. i will reread the pos6 complaint to refresh on their alternative arguments but my recollection is that it will not help anyone other than, possibly, people in Mr Almeidas situation. In other words the application of the standard may be subject to challenge but i think the ship has sailed (and sunk) on challenging the standard itself. as for people who criticize gura's approach in Drake, understand that the 3rd circuit opinion was a horribly reasoned one in which thr judges did contortions to reach the result they wanted. the judiciary is so stacked against us that no amount of legal argument is likely to succeed and now with the supreme court likely to lurch hard left because cruz supporters handed hillary a victory even a win at the federal appellate level will only result in an opportunity for heller to be overturned. i truly hope im wrong. time will tell.
  23. one of the first things they teach you in law school is that the facts are everything. "The law" doesn' exist in a vaccum. Legal principles, whether based on case law, statute or regulation, are only meaningful when applied to the facts at hand. The facts of Almeida's case were dramatic and could relatively easily be seen as falling under the admittedly nebulous and arbitrary justifiable need standard. If someone without direct and dramatic threats against them makes the exact same argument I imagine they will fail. In other words, in my view the simple assertion that "self defense" satisfies the justifiable need standard without documented and dramatic threats of imminent bodily harm is not one iota stronger than it was before Almeida got his permit. And there had been no ruling by the court so no legal precedent has been set. Put simply, this "victory" does absolutely nothing to help anyone other than Albert Almeida and perhaps, at best, other people who can demonstrate significant and imminent threats or bodily harm AND who are willing to spend the time and mone to fileva lawsuit.
  24. Hopefully they will spend more time proofreading their court briefs and less time hawking t-shirts. I just took a quick look at the briefs and stopped after the 3rd glaring typo. Not a way to impress the judges. They take that seriously. Belieeeeeeve me.
  25. Although the language is slightly garbled, I don't read it the way Trunk does. Paragraph 1 is crystal clear and is the operative paragraph in legal parlance: "The Commonwealth of PA will recognize valid NH permits to carry concealed firearms by valid permit holders while said permit holders are present in the Commonwealth of PA". (Emphasis added). "Valid NH permits" unambiguously includes non-resident permits, and non-residents are unambiguously "valid permit holders." There is no other way to read it. The language Trunk cited in paragraph 3 is: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from respective states and not to any other types of weapons." That paragraph is clearly talking about the type of weapon covered by the reciprocity agreement and limiting those weapons to firearms. Given the context, "respective states" should mean PA and NH, but in fact could mean other states as well in the case of non-resident holders. "valid license/permit holders from respective states" could, read in a vacuum, mean one of three things: 1) holder of permits from (ie issued by) PA and NH; 2) holders from any state (if respective isn't limited to PA and NH); or 3) permit holders from (ie who live in) PA and NH. Reading 1 is completely consistent with paragraph 1 and the rest of the agreement. Reading 2 is possible but confused and less likely but still would be consistent with paragraph 1. Reading 3 (Trunk's reading) creates a conflict with Paragraph 1, which as noted above unambiguously covers ALL NH permits, resident and non-resident. There is a principle in contract interpretation that where there is an ambiguity in the language an interpretation that is reconcilable with the rest of the agreement is the correct interpretation. I have no idea how these reciprocity agreements are interpreted or enforced in criminal cases, and I'm guessing there is little legal precedent on that. However, it seems vastly more likely (although not 100% certain) that IF a prosecutor chose to prosecute a NH non-resident permit holder because of the garbled language (which seems unlikely, especially in light of the clarity in the revised Fla reciprocity agreement), it would thrown out of court. But Trunk is correct, there is a possibility, however small, that PA could try to screw someone due to the garbled language.
×
×
  • Create New...