JackDaWack

Things are a changing, for sure. A district court ruled that just because it's listed, doesn't make a person prohibited. Indicating the Feds could add anything to a list they want and it would simply make firearm ownership illegal. In essence, the judge proclaimed the FEDs need to provide proof why a person should be prohibited beyond a simple arbitrary list. To compound his ruling, everyone knows weed doesn't belong on the Schedule 1 list, it's been medically and recreationally legal in too many states at this point for the feds to maintain any reasoning for that.

Probably already is. The law doesn't ban braces from these guns, it bans ANYTHING that has surface area to be shouldered. That "cover" has an ATF letter dated from years ago... where as some braces recieved the same ATF approval. The ATF just has to show it has more surface area than a bare extension tube, and they have satisfied the rule banning it.

It's not a disclaimer.. The permit has literal instructions to follow if they are present for it to be valid. A cop can make any claim about anything. If no guns are listed, can't they just claim you don't have any guns you can carry if this is the standing argument?

Without "instructions" for the permit holder as to why the guns are listed, I came to the same conclusion. Those 3 checkboxes establish a condition must be met for the permit to be valid, no check no conditions. My court order specifically states if I carry anything other than the listed firearms, my permit is revoked.

I think the point is to avoid confusion if it's presented to LEO. If the box is checked, or an order is present and you also have guns listed in either case. If nothing is checked off in those 3 boxes, your permit falls squarely under current law. Those 3 boxes establish any modifications you must follow. If any of the boxes are checked, I would carry only what is listed, if listed, regardless of what "restricted" applied to in the past. Just to CYA.

Then carry what you want so long you own it. The permit is unrestricted, unless you have a court order. Guns being listed on a permit with no instructions or restrictions.... is meaningless. You are not breaking a law by carrying a gun not listed on your permit.

The only thing at this point keeping anyone from carrying any firearm they own is a court order, which is accompanied by the check on the restrictions field. Cops or whoever should know that..

What does that mean? Proficiency is a measured metric. Unless the law requires you be proficient with the specific firearm, and in ways outlines what that means, it's not something that can be argued against you. If you've given reason to show you lack proficiency, you start down the path of things like reckless endangerment, manslaughter etc... essentially you put a bullet where it should never have gone. That is why YOU make sure YOU are proficient. It's not because you are worried a good shoot might question why you used that gun, but to prevent yourself from an unintended consequence turning a good shoot into a bad one. No restrictions mean no guns listed... Listing guns would appear to show a restriction.

The issue is filed in both state and federal court. It's not officially a national issue until the 7th court has a final opinion.

FOPA would protect you if you are travelling through the state, even if you stop, provided you maintain the transportation rules. You're entering some murkery scenario here referring to these places as a temporary residence.. I would say, unless you have the powers of a property owner or tenant, it would not be considered a residence/home/domicile. The courts would 100% consider you a guest of the property, and you have zero options unless otherwise own a permit to carry, or a FPID for rifles.

Not sure what up with the article, but it does state that. I think the 7th already upheld a restraining order on the law for specific plaintiffs.

They basically gifted those cars by leaving the keys in them... what!

I believe they are in Discovery right now, so no hard dates a present while both parties submit documentation. The NJ AG recieved 1 extensions already on finding historical and relevant information. I wouldnt be shocked, but its not a good look per say to request another extension after 9 months. The courts should be asking if they haven't found what they need to argue the case... public information, then they probably will never find it because it doesn't exist. So the AG would have to offer some kind of reason for the extension. Current time line said 9 months. I think that puts it in April to have completed Discovery and set dates for hearings. The 4 year timeline I beleive is for appeals to SCOTUS to have the matter "officially" ruled on. This could be done and over at the lower courts by next year if it goes in our favor. I bet this gets struck down in the district court, which is a major win for NJ. I ALSO beleive the state will forgo appeals. Similar to Delawares ruling on manufacturing firearms lacking a serial number, these States have figured if they can't win in District courts there is no way to reverse the ruling in their respective higher courts which are sure to scrutinize their BS even more. I think a lot of them are seeing the short sighted mistake that NY did with the 2nd circuit, which yes bought them some time, but they know they are going to lose, and THAT decision will be far reaching compared to the District decision if they just let it stand.

Aside from the BS law. Didn't FFLs already record handgun amuntion sales? Now there is just a stupid fee and it's reported in FARS.

Well, isn't that inherently the problem? If someone tests for THC, or alcohol for that matter... Should a jury reach a different conclusion on a good vs bad shoot simple because the presence of a substance? Or would it be more objective to focus on whether the individual acted appropriately and reasonable, or not, regardless? This old school though that automatically places someone in the wrong is IMO a cop out and I believe that was the judges argument. That simply placing a banned substance on a list doesn't inherently speak to the nature of someone's actions with respect to firearm ownership.

My question is: if someone managed to cause such an accident, does the factor of intoxication really matter if the resulting outcome were the same? Let say both were the result of speeding, one simple recklessness and one drunk... do the actions of one outweigh the other? Alternatively, if you shoot someone and you've been consuming alcohol or MJ, does that automatically make it a bad shoot? Now, I do acknowledge that altering one's mind and carrying a firearm is a recipe for poor judgment. However I will not conceded that the benefits of such regulations or ability to identify people intoxicated outweighs someone's right to own and carry firearms.

Let me play devils advocate. What does the presence of a substance have to do with the outcome of the "situation"? Does it really matter if alcohol or MJ was involved if the actions of the individual show intent to commit a crime? Take two people who caused the death of an individual... does it really matter if one was under the influence and the other was not if they were to conduct the crime in the same way? I see the law as written as a preventive measure.. IMO, a bad shoot is a bad shoot, sober or intoxicated you are responsible for your actions.

Which is why the constitution doesn't really allow for them to make your firearm illegal after owning it legally. Defacto seizure. The ATF wants you to register it, but they have openly ignored these were legal before and in NJ, there is no way to register one even if you wanted to.

"Rifle" and "Short barreled Rifle" are two distinctly different things by statutory definition. That's why is asked why the SAF said it was a "Rifle" and not a "SBR"

Why remove it if it's reclassified as "rifle"? These "rules" are only for the ATF and federal enforcement of the NFA. At the state level, our Others have not changed legal definition.

The ruling made sense to me. The judge looked pretty hard at the effects of MJ on the user and determined that it wouldn't contribute to what would constitute a prohibited person. I do agree, that the intoxication component would make sense as a disqualifier for something like carry. If the same methodology were used for other drugs, I could see different outcomes, which is a good thing and means people are applying some actual critical thinking of the issue.

Nothing to see here.

So when are the red flag laws next?

Huh? They had a 60 day timeline written into the statute. Your application falls under the old rules even if they changed. I would seek a conversation asap with the top LEO of the station..