JackDaWack
-
Content Count
7,896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14 -
Feedback
100%
Posts posted by JackDaWack
-
-
33 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:Question about constructive intent. If one owns one or more standard AR pattern rifles, and also owns at least one "other", does constructive intent come into play?
It shouldn't be a problem if everything is currently assembled and legal. If this were an issue, anyone with both NFA legal SBRs and rifles, would have legal issues with the rifles since uppers can be swapped to non nfa lowers.
Let's say you replaced a stock on a carbine, and the old butt stock now sits in a box somewhere in the house, what's to stop someone from just slipping the old stock on to an "other", or pulling a stock from a proper carbine and slipping it on an "other"?
If the other has a bare extension tube, you are looking at a big problem. If it has something that first needs to be removed, you're still in a grey area but a bit more defensible.
-
9 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:they'll be tryin to ban that soon enough....
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.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, Malaka said:I don't think you'll find a good answer for this. The list is to show what handguns you qualified with. Whether they are gonna expect or claim that's what your limited to carrying is up to whoever is scrutinizing it. Every county, court and PD has been doing this differently for everyone. There is no correct answer because telling you to ignore it and it's just a list without a disclaimer is bad advice. No restrictions, no court order, law says anything you own. That's what I'm gonna follow. But I know there could be that one guy out there who is convinced I'm limited to what's listed and I'll have some headaches. Let's be honest here, we've heard of instances where cops don't know the law and it gets cleared up in court but do you wanna deal with that? That's kinda your decision and your risk to take.
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?
-
57 minutes ago, 45Doll said:It's a statement of fact that you did in fact qualify with one or more handguns.
End of statement.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Tunaman said:I believe the "restrictions" box on the permit was for security guards that were "restricted" to carry only while at work or on the job. I dont think that box has anything to do with what guns you can carry. The problem comes when you shoot somebody and you haven't qualified with the gun you shot him with. This state will ruin your life forever in that scenario.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Vdep217 said:They will scrutinize every aspect of it right down to the smallest detail. As for the restrictions part my permit is checked unrestricted and I have no court order but firearms I qualified with are listed
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, joeg said:Mine says no restrictions and has the gun I qualified with... The problem with having no restrictions checked and having guns listed is that it will be confusing for cops whenj 26th you're pulled over. To make it easier, it should say any gun registered, this way there's no ambiguity.
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..
-
1
-
-
On 3/14/2023 at 7:34 AM, Vdep217 said:The officer running them at my local pd said with no restrictions you can carry any firearm you own regardless of what's listed. He did however say in the event you have to use you will be scrutinized to proficiency with firearm
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.
42 minutes ago, joeg said:So you can send in proof of ownership (model, serial #, etc) and then they issue a new card that lists the new guns? I heard from the PD that you could carry any gun you own, but what if you want to add 10 guns - I doubt there would be enough room. I wish they would just add a note that says something like 'Allowed to carry any gun registered to him/her'
No restrictions mean no guns listed...
Listing guns would appear to show a restriction.
-
12 hours ago, ESB said:Gotcha, I was just going by what was in the article. If it is appealed to the State's Supreme Court does that mean that ruling would only apply to their state (ie no nationwide implications)? Even if the basis is on federal law and Bruen?
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
22 minutes ago, b47356 said:The "5th circuit court of appeals" doesn't cover Illinois.
This is a state case being appealed to the state supreme court.
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.
-
2
-
-
They basically gifted those cars by leaving the keys in them... what!
-
On 2/22/2023 at 12:01 PM, ESB said:It seems the State asked for more time in Nov in order to research historical precedence to back up the law. That was 3 months ago. Is there a timeline of how long they have or a date set for the next course of action?
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
10 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:This reminds me of a friend I had years back who used to say, "I wasn't drunk... I was just feeling good."
We agree on one point... mixing any kind of intoxicating substance with carry is incredibly dumb. Where we differ is that I still think the murky nature of testing for pot impairment (where you can test positive for THC, yet not actually be impaired) ALSO makes it MORE of a legal guagmire on all sides. Can you imagine, god forbid, you get involved in a shooting.. .they test you and THC shows up? Even if you were straight as a church mouse, how much money will you need to shell out for expert witnesses to debunk the test? More to the point, will the jury even believe them? No matter how you pitch it, pot + guns is a potential legal quagmire for anyone who ventures there. Just my opinion!
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.
-
7 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:Devil's advocate... I'm so down with that!
How 'bout this... let's suppose (perish the thought!) some high-as-a-kite driver smashes into the car that your wife is driving and your kids are in the back seat (or grandkids, sorry, don't know your age) . All occupants are grievously injured... and your family is now facing the prospect of their ongoing, sustained medical care (and the resulting huge bills) perhaps for decades to come. Same situation for a bad shoot... someone's depth perception is off... your family is now badly injured. I would think that proof of guilt in those situations (or lack thereof, since it's pot and not alcohol), might well affect any resulting lawsuits that you file, and certainly might impact the jury as they determine what amount of $ you should be awarded.
In legal situations, I think evidence of guilt is pretty potent!
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.
-
On 2/6/2023 at 1:30 PM, Mrs. Peel said:Hmmm? Am I the only one in this thread with real concerns about this?
Isn't the part I bolded above an ongoing problem with pot right now, even with driving? My understanding is that unlike alcohol (where there's a pathway for proving guilt by way of a blood alcohol content level that can be measured), it's not so with pot. Someone could have smoked 24 hrs earlier - or - smoked 30 min before they grabbed and used their firearm... but they'd still have THC in their bloodstream without a definitive, measurable way to show whether or not that level of THC made them impaired. (If I'm wrong, I trust someone will come on and correct me). Perhaps roadside sobriety tests (you know those "close your eyes, now touch your nose" tests) carry more weight in a court of law than I'm aware of? Because I would think a good lawyer could make mincemeat out of those roadside tests - "my client was tired after working long hours... he also had a recent inner ear infection... of course, he couldn't walk straight, your honor..." etc. (Isn't that likely why cops follow-up with a breathalyzer or blood test in the first place? To have evidence that is harder to refute in court?).
It's bad enough if someone drives (or carries, etc.) when they're drunk... at least you can definitively, measurably prove that... and if nothing else, justice will be served after-the-fact. I just don't see how you can ensure the same result if someone is high. And I hate like hell the thought that some dumbasses will have some "bad shoots" while high, thereby giving our anti-2A opposition MORE ammo to use against us. I just don't see how this is a positive development... besides, I feel like our society is self-medicating at a rate that's growing alarmingly fast. I don't see any of this as a social good.
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.
-
37 minutes ago, FunGun said:The A4 other is my first gun purchase. I don’t really follow a lot of what’s happening in the “gun world”. I just happened to come across this news by chance. No official notices to owners of these firearms? I’m supposed to just know this stuff? If I didn’t come across this, I’d be going along fat, dumb and happy until I went to the range where a lot of Police Officers frequent. That would be a heck of a way to find out that I was breaking the law.
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.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, ESB said:Because if your newly reclassified "Rifle" has a barrel of less than 16" it is now an unregistered Short Barrel Rifle.
"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"
-
4 hours ago, ESB said:It seems the SAF's legal team has concluded that the Brace rule has in fact reclassified our "Others" as "Rifles".
This is for Others with braces which is what the overwhelming majority of Others have. ATF has said that removing the brace and making it so that it cannot be re-attached (re-locating it is fine) would make the weapon legal so long as you don't add another device that adds surface area that can be shouldered. Basically remove the brace and leave a bare buffer tube is fine (so long as the buffer tube is required for operation).
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.
-
9 hours ago, Lawnmower2021 said:It doesn't apply to me but in general it makes sense so long as any law dealing with intoxication still holds.
Just like people can own alcohol and cars, but not use them at the same time.
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?
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Flyingcarpenter said:I would give them 6 months before contacting them, just my two cents. I know these are constitutional rights and we shouldn't concede to delays. However, until the courts impose a timeline we are at their mercy. Also we are in uncharted water, now that the state police is in the process alone. I am curious to know if they are going to issue the license electronically or call for a pickup.
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..
Cannabis Legal on 4/21/22 - But legal for gun owners?
in Current New Jersey Gun Laws Discussion
Posted
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.