Trunk

I think our chances of a national AWB would be closer to 100% than it currently is.

The flyer uses the same template - or someone wants us to think it uses the same template - as the Black Civics' Election Night Watch Party flyer. Either way, it's pretty clear that this is a trap. It wasn't created by any pro-2A group and it would be a horrible idea for anybody to show up at a state capitol with guns. If you take peaceful, armed protestors and add violent counter-protestors with flagpoles and bear spray, I think we all know who's getting blamed. They're already trying to link Michigan in May (armed, non-violent protest) with January 6 (unarmed, violent protest) to push their "but, but, but what if they had guns in D.C.?" narrative. They would just love an armed violent protest to boost public opinion for more gun control, especially AR-pattern rifles which play a minuscule role in the "gun violence" figures.

Guys, this situation is no different than our statutes here in NJ. 2C:39-5(b)(1) clearly and unambiguously states that "[a]ny person who knowingly has in his possession any handgun, including any antique handgun, without first having obtained a permit to carry the same as provided in N.J.S.2C:58-4, is guilty of a crime of the second degree." Under this statue, absolutely nobody can possess a handgun without obtaining a permit to carry under 2C:58-4. But we all know that's not the end of the story. 2C:39-6 sets forth all of the situations when 2C:39-5 does not apply. Based on your logic, everyone should also agree that nobody can possess a handgun in NJ according to 2C:39-5, regardless of what the rest of the criminal statutes say. Respectfully, that is completely wrong. You have to read the statutes (and contracts) as a whole. I just thought it was worth bringing it up. We can agree to disagree (the attorneys I've spoken with have). We'll all do what we're comfortable with.

Are you taking about Bach v. NH Dept. of Safety? The issue before the NH Supreme Court was whether, by requiring a NJ resident to first obtain a carry permit in his home state, NH was subjecting NJ residents to a higher standard than required by NH law. The result is that NJ residents can obtain a NH permit without obtaining one from NJ. The NH Supreme Court was not asked to opine whether a NJ resident could carry in PA with a NH permit. Even if it was and even if it had, it wouldn't be binding on PA. I'm not aware of any PA decision that interprets the reciprocity agreement, and I'm not willing to be the one who changes that.

As with PAFOA, that is their interpretation and is of no legal significance.

Of course. We're just talking about what we think words mean. I'm only saying what I'm comfortable. If you're talking about paragraph one in the reciprocity agreement, paragraph 1 is crystal clear. But that doesn't mean that paragraph 3 does not have meaning or, more importantly, legal significance. For example, you and your employer could enter into the following agreement: 1) You will show up at work. 2) Your employer will pay you. 3) This agreement only applies to the workweek and not to weekends. Paragraph 3 serves a purpose, no matter how broad and clear paragraphs 1 and 2 are.

You pulled that from the AG website, right? You don't believe that the NJSP website is an accurate summary of the law, right? If you are charged criminally, you are charged under a statute, not a summary of the law on a website. Therefore, you have to look at the applicable statute. PA law requires you to obtain a license from PA before carrying, unless there is statutory reciprocity or a reciprocity agreement is in place. There is a reciprocity agreement in place with NH. The language in the reciprocity agreement is controlling (including any residency restrictions), not the general description of a reciprocity agreement on the AG website. You wouldn't carry in PA with a FL permit would you? No, you wouldn't... because the language in the reciprocity agreement doesn't allow for it.

Maybe. At this point, I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using it in PA as a non-resident of NH. I think the language in the agreement explicitly limits the agreement to PA and NH residents. Whether people have been carrying in PA with NH permits is completely irrelevant to my analysis. Paragraphs 1 and 2 state that PA will recognize NH permits, and NH will recognize PA permits, respectively. I think we all agree on that. Paragraph 3 of the PA-NH Agreement says: "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." In my opinion this language limits the agreement - albeit unintentionally - to permit holders from PA or NH. The paragraph was clearly supposed to limit the agreement to the carrying of firearms only, but was worded inartfully. As I read it, "respective states" means PA and NH. I don't think it can mean another other state. Therefore, paragraph 3 can also be read as: "This Reciprocity Agreement applies only to the carrying of firearms by valid license/permit holders from [PA or NH] and not to any other types of weapons." It says "license/permit holders from respective states." (emphasis added). It does not say "holders of permits from respective states." To me, that difference is enough to keep me from carrying in PA with a NH permit. To be clear, that is not PA's website. That is a website of a non-profit organization that has interpreted the various reciprocity agreements. My interpretation differs.

Sent you a PM rather than post it here, though I'm sure the PA AG is aware. I'd be interested to hear what you think. If you think it's worth discussing openly, we can do that.

Honestly, after reading the NH reciprocity agreement again, I decided not to bother with NH. In my opinion, even if you received the permit, it would be a waste of money.

magnawing, this week. I wish I had more notice, because I think it could have otherwise worked out. T Bill, thanks. I saw that. I think it's outdated, because they don't accept hard cards except under narrow circumstances for residents. Something like living in a county with less than 46,000 people and being a certain distance away from an electronic fingerprinting facility. I figured out that if you proceed on the IdentoGO website like you're adopting domestically through a private attorney, it doesn't cross-reference your name with an active application like it does for a lot of the other categories. It brings you right to the scheduling page. Unfortunately there are no openings within an hour and a half radius until days after I'll be gone. Of course, this assumes that IdentoGO doesn't prioritize fingerprinting for certain purposes and show different results for each.

I spoke with IndentoGO again and asked to see if there are any available appointments when I'm in Houston. The representative asked why I wanted to do anything in Texas if I'm from New Jersey. She was completely unhelpful and insisted - unlike the representative this morning - that I had to pay the $140 to Texas DPS before she could look up availability. She refused to help even after I explained that the representative this morning was able to tell me that information. I have a feeling that she was from a NJ, NY, or CA call center.

Does the fingerprinting have to take place in Texas or is it possible to go to any IdentoGO location? I'm going to be in Houston and think I can squeeze in an evening class but the nearest fingerprinting place is booked solid for days.

I have personally seen one carry permit. The guy was in check cashing.

I hand delivered an FPID address change application, application for 9 permits and completed exemption application to my local PD on December 31, 2012 and picked them up during the first full week of February. I can look and see when my exemption was approved by NJSP (IIRC, it was a week or two before the dates on my pistol permits), but that won't tell me when they received it from my local PD.

Yeah, it seems like the core targets were the PA residents who were denied a permit or had it revoked. After seeing the updated Utah statute and the fact that PA allows Illinois residents to obtain a non-resident PA permit with a showing of their FOID (suggesting that they don't mind non-residents carrying without their home-state's resident permit), I think Utah will stay safe for the time being. Do the other statutory reciprocity states have the same home-state permit prerequisite as UT?

In the post right above yours, I acknowledged that UT requires a PA resident (and residents of certain other states) to have a permit from their home state before it will issue a non-resident permit to that person. That's a relatively new (~2011) requirement, though, and it still doesn't apply to residents of states like NJ. Accordingly, the average NJ resident can get a UT permit (and carry in PA), even though PA won't issue a permit to that same NJ resident. That's completely inconsistent with the AG's push to modify all existing reciprocity agreements to prevent everyone from carrying in PA with only a non-resident permit from a reciprocal state. Notwithstanding Utah's statute, above, the fact remains that there are enough differences between the states' laws that the AG could foreseeably nullify statutory reciprocity with Utah if she wanted to. As far as I can tell, there is no agreement or statute preventing her from doing that. To the contrary, the statute explicitly authorizes her to do it.

Based on how easily she negotiated new reciprocity agreements, I don't think anything is stopping her from issuing an official opinion letter making a determination that is different than a previous one. However, after looking at Utah's statutes, I think it's important to note that Utah requires residents of states that recognize the validity of the Utah permit or have reciprocity with Utah's concealed firearm permit law (like PA) to hold a current permit from their state. Thus, if PA refuses to issue one to a PA resident, Utah will also. That seems to be what PA was mainly concerned with. With that said, you still have to contend with Philly's ordinance. Did anyone ever challenge that?

I disagree. The statute doesn't need to be changed at all for her to revoke statutory reciprocity. Look at (ii). She simply needs to determine that Utah's laws are not similar to Pennsylvania's. For example, Utah will issue a permit to someone without them having first obtained a permit from the state of their residency. Pennsylvania will not. The result is that PA residents can carry concealed with a UT permit in Philly, which is exactly what the AG and mayor are trying to prevent. Another example is that UT law allows permit holders to carry on the property of public schools. PA generally doesn't, but does have an exception for "lawful" purposes. However, earlier this year, a man (Dr. Charles V. King, II DC) who was carrying concealed (with a valid PA permit) was arrested at a school in Confluence, PA. The DA's office, while acknowledging that the law was vague, took "the position that you do not, unless you are law enforcement, have the right to go on school property with any weapon." Again, this could give the AG reason to deem the states' laws dissimilar.

"Utah" does not appear in the statute. I have been unable to find any "statutory agreement" as you are calling it. Based on the statute, Utah and the few other states are entitled to statutory reciprocity, because two conditions have been met. First, the states provide reciprocal privilege for individuals licensed under PA's statute. Second, the Attorney General determined that the firearms laws of the states are similar to the firearm laws of PA. It doesn't seem that hard for the Attorney General to simply determine otherwise. Can you show me an example of any statutory agreements with any of the 6106(b)(15) states? (Colorado, Iowa, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Utah and/or Wisconsin)

Based on my reading of the statute, I think that she can "touch" Utah and any other state currently identified on the Attorney General website as having "statutory reciprocity." The statute doesn't specifically identify states. It gives the Attorney General the ability to determine that the firearm laws of a given state are "similar" (or not similar) to those in PA. See § 6106(b)(15), below. I think that the statutory reciprocity states will be pushed to reciprocity agreements.

The only catch is that he will try to sell you tactical pens and bulletproof panels during the video, which is easily ignored. Then he will bombard you with emails about those offers, his other course called "Spy Escape and Evasion", as well as joining an exclusive "members only" gun club that protects you in the event that you have to use your gun in a self-defense situation. If you don't sign up, he starts sending letters to your house. The good news is that if you enjoy his "Covert Guide to Concealed Carry: Confessions of a Former CIA Officer", you will also enjoy his "Covert Guide to Real Estate Wealth: Confessions of a Former CIA Officer." Check out some of his corny get-rich-quick videos on YouTube.

First, I would like to know if you purchased your gun(s) from an FFL and whether you hold any out-of-state CCW permits.

I was thinking the same thing.

Assemblyman Rumana (District 40) has repeatedly sponsored the "New Jersey Right to Home Defense Law" bill. http://www.njleg.sta...000/1906_I1.PDF It outlines circumstances under which people are presumed to have a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury" in their home or residence. Importantly, it explicitly provides civil and criminal immunity for people who are justified in their use of force. I have no idea why it doesn't get more support, though.