• Announcements

    • Maksim

      NJGF's Gun Range & Store Database   05/23/2017

      Excited about launching a new feature, our very own member- driven range and store database.  Read the announcement and watch the video here... www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/86658-njgfs-gun-store-range-database/


Premier Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Community Reputation

78 Excellent

1 Follower

About SJG

  • Rank
    NJGF Regular

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    Union County
  • Home Range
  1. I just looked at the passed and signed version of the statute. There is an inherent ambiguity regarding the section I quoted and another part of the law, that is the 180 grace period, whereas the quoted section has a one year registration time limit. I agree that the registration exception applies to magazines that cannot be modified but if the vast majority can be, then the takings issue may only apply to some but not all, but that does not make the takings stronger---but it may be enough. However, the time gap between the 180 grace period and the 1 year registration period, even if limited to a minority of mags--may afford a defense for anyone that goes beyond 180 days and up to the 1 year period, those in that group may be able to argue that they could not modify and the one year mandatory registration period still applies. Very poor drafting.
  2. Well, I guess we read the Nappen summary different: "The new registration requirements demand that a person who legally owns, prior to the enactment of the new law; 1) a firearm with a fixed magazine capacity holding up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds; OR 2) a firearm which only accepts a detachable magazine with a capacity of up to 15 rounds which is incapable of being modified to accommodate 10 or less rounds. One must register that firearm within one year from the new law’s enactment. (Even though there is only 180 day “grace period” for newly prohibited magazines.) I guess the issue is "up to 15 rounds or less"--seems to me that means from 1-15--and if more than 10 which you can't modify I read it as saying you could register. By the way, registration is a bad idea and nothing more than a prelude to seizure which will be the Dems next step \
  3. registration for fixed mags 15 or detachables of 15 or less that cannot be modified to 10. Calif did not have that option
  4. This is good news but the opinion is not for publication and not precedential nor is the case in the U.S. District court in Calif over. NJ unlike the Calif law contains a fourth option for registration--for existing mags--not present as an option in the Calif law, which will surely impact the "takings" analysis. Also, the Ninth Cir opinion is not a ruling on the merits of the Calif 10 round mag bag. However--a win is a win---
  5. The settlement is certainly of interest but any admissions made therein by the gov have no binding or precedential effect on any other litigation, especially, any pending or contemplated state litigation in other contexts
  6. Have one coming in shortly. Just curious what IWB holsters do any of you have personal experience with the P365
  7. You have responded that you own the NJ residence. Under those circumstances you can store your guns at that residence. Do not confuse residence with domicile or either or both of those with your fiscal responsibility to pay State taxes, the latter being irrelevant to your question.
  8. Are you the owner or a tenant in the secondary residence?
  9. ask your internist or GP for a referral or look on the internet---you are over thinking the problem--
  10. Who sells Hexmag parts to convert a 15/30 to a 10/30 ?
  11. M9A3 How is the trigger?
  12. They will come to your house, take your firearms and shoot them with your ammo until the barrels are fouled to get them ready for match tournaments to assure fouled bore zero scope match. They can also get them ready for the professional barrel cleaners that come to you mentioned in the companion thread See link.
  13. how much are these going for?
  14. What makes you think Nics cannot find out about this since you posted your history on a public forum
  15. US Judge Rejects Challenge to NJ Firearm Carry Restrictions The suit was brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a Wall, New Jersey, resident who was denied a permit to carry a handgun because he could not demonstrate a justifiable need. By Charles Toutant | May 22, 2018 at 04:01 PM Credit: iStockphoto.com A federal judge in Trenton, New Jersey, has turned back a constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s law requiring the showing of a “justifiable need” for anyone who wants to carry firearms in public. The suit was brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and a Wall, New Jersey, resident who was denied a permit to carry a handgun because he could not demonstrate a justifiable need. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Brian Martinotti granted a motion to dismiss the challenge. The decision highlights a circuit split over whether a state may place the burden on an applicant to prove need in order to secure a carry permit. Martinotti said he had no authority to grant the plaintiffs’ request to declare the “justifiable need” requirement unconstitutional, because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had upheld the constitutionality of that requirement in New Jersey’s gun permit laws in its 2013 decision, Drake v. Filko. In that case, the appeals court held that the “justifiable need” requirement for persons seeking to carry a handgun in public was “presumptively lawful” and did not infringe on the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs argued that Drake was wrongly decided and urged the court to follow Wrenn v. District of Columbia, a 2017 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In that case, a special-need requirement for a permit to carry a firearm in public, similar to New Jersey’s, was overturned. But Wrenn is “neither binding nor precedential to this Court and cannot serve to overturn Third Circuit precedent,” Martinotti wrote. The District Court “does not have the authority or power to grant such a request and, therefore, deems this complaint meritless on its face.” The individual plaintiff in the case, Thomas Rogers, has an automatic teller machine business, which requires him to travel to various locations carrying large amounts of cash. His application to carry a weapon was denied by his town’s police chief, who concluded that he failed to establish specific threats that put him in special and unavoidable danger. Superior Court Judge Joseph Oxley affirmed that ruling on Jan. 2. Oxley said Rogers failed to demonstrate he was subject to the level of specific attacks or threats required under statute to get permission to carry a handgun. He only cited general circumstances when he had to leave his machines due to “suspicious activities taking place nearby.” The suit said New Jersey’s courts have interpreted the justifiable-need requirement to determine that generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice to establish a justifiable need. As a result, typical New Jersey residents who cannot demonstrate their life is in danger, as evidenced by serious threats or previous attacks, are effectively subject to a ban on carrying guns outside the home, the suit asserts. The other plaintiff, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, says on its website that it is “the official New Jersey affiliate of” the National Rifle Association. The ANJRPC says the “incredible support and guidance” of the NRA “made this new lawsuit possible,” and goes on to say that the “right to carry’s time is coming in the Garden State.” Named as defendants in the case were New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal; Patrick Callahan, acting superintendent of the New Jersey State Police; Kenneth Brown Jr., chief of the Wall Township Police Department, and Superior Court Judges Joseph Oxley and N. Peter Conforti. Martinotti cited three failed legal efforts aimed at overturning Drake. As a trial judge he lacked discretion to disregard such controlling precedent, he wrote. Daniel Schmutter of Hartman & Winnicki in Ridgewood, New Jersey, represented the plaintiff along with lawyers from Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. Schmutter said in an e-mail that “We are confident that the United States Supreme Court will vindicate the right to carry a firearm outside of the home as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.” Schmutter previously stated that he was hopeful that the Rogers case could reach the Supreme Court, in light of the conflict between the D.C. Circuit ruling in Wrenn, and the Third Circuit ruling in Drake. He said that courts in New Jersey and other states have interpreted the “justifiable need” standard vary narrowly, and permits are granted very rarely under that standard. Deputy Attorney General Bryan Edward Lucas represented the state defendants. A spokesman for the New Jersey Attorney General’s office, Lee Moore, said in a statement, “We agree with the court’s decision. New Jersey’s law regulating the public carrying of firearms is plainly constitutional. As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has already held, our law is valid because it reflects a longstanding approach to promoting public safety.” SHARE ON FACEBOOK