hardlife_nef

IANAL to be sure, but the whole basis of NJs gun laws seems to go against the basic tenat of law. NJ has made firearms possession illegal except for specific exceptions. So much for guilty till proven innocent. While not a law in itself it is a long held tenet. I recall hearing of a case in the late 70s that talked to this. (too lazy to look it up but I think it was somebody v Kentucky) Being that no other laws in that state follow that principal (that I am aware of, specifically dealing with an enumerated right), seems like there would be some basis via that route. I did read the ruling and dissent and there seems to be cause for the Supreme Court to take it up, but is it enough for them to do so? I don't know.

Had I done so earlier I'm sure it wouldn't have been an issue but once I realized there would be a longer wait than I had anticipated and contacted the seller he already had the other offer and to be fair to both based on the weapons history he wont. I'm cool with the terms, but am still hopeful. Was told by someone at county health that there is no backlog, but would like confirmation from an official source before speaking with the acting cheif.

Is anyone aware of a delay in mental health checks in Hudson County? If so, any idea what the backlog is? Finally, is there a specific person I would be able to call and ask other than the main office # in secaucus? I ask because I have been checking on the process used by Union City. I have already passed the 45 day mark and a extremely rare window of opportunity is about to close for me. You see I am trying to purchase the 1911 that I was issued in the service. The seller is aware of whats going on with the city, but has another much larger offer from another buyer and is only willing to wait so long. The second buyer had also been issued the same sidearm a few years before me. The seller is being more than patient and fair with me both in waiting and on the price. No way I could come close to the offer the second buyer is offering so here I sit waiting dreading the time its taking.

Nics check delay of ~10 days. Fid checks ~68 days. Aside from prints (which being electronic checks are quick) what is different? Is the process that dramatically different? If not why do fids take so long? Same reason. Because it takes however long they say it takes. What are you gonna do about it? Don't tell me how to do my job. You'll get it when you get it. Thats the response I got from a local cleo.

My brother got the call and has picked up his gun. All told 10 days for the "instant check", 63 days for the fid & p2p. Lol I hadn't seen him so excited since we were kids opening presents on christmas day. He bought a .40 cal storm. Wants to buy a second one now and name them thunder and lightning. Lol a bit cheesey but I can overstand his enthusiasm.

Not sure. New chief seemed aware of how the city became compliant as well as how it had become uncompliant prior. I have to see if I can contact the old chief.

So as some of you know I had gotten the chief of police in UC to comply with state firearms laws. I had told him I would give the city some time to get comfortable with the new process before applying and report back ho things went. Unfortunately the chief after just over a year on the job resigned his post. I was not aware of this when I applied. While the city is complying with the paperwork requirements it has become abundantly clear that the major factors in the delay of the apps stems from the sgt that handles the process. I just had a conversation with the new acting chief. I had called to check on the status of my app having hit the 23 day mark. I called not expecting it to be ready, but I have learned by helping others obtain their card that our city will not contact you if there is an issue regardless of what that issue may be. So I figured it would be best to make sure thing were going smoothly. I was told everything seemed to be in order that they were waiting on county to return the mental health. I thanked the extremely courteous lady and said no worries you have 30 days we have time. At this point she asked me to hold a sec. Next voice on the phone is the sgt that does the checks he comes on the line. Being that I didnt ask for him, I was a bit confused as to why he was on the phone. He starts in with the authority voice explaining what was going to happen. He stated that regardless of how long it took no application was going to the chiefs desk untill all paperwork was back. I then stated that the law wasn't written that way. Its 30 days, not finding cause to deny you must issue. Thats when he became unproffesional. He attempted several inflection and tone changes along with wordplay to try and intimidate me. He insinuated that the processes could be delayed that he decided when and if an app made it to the chiefs desk. After asking him to first lower his voice I told him I was not intimidated and that I would be contacting the chief and mayor. Ofcourse at the time I didn't now we had a new chief. Well after my conversation with the chief I did not feel any better. While he was polite, I did not get a good feeling from him. Although I was clear and upfront that I wasn't looking for special treatment and I was providing feedback on how things were going he went into full on political mode he spoke many words and said nothing. Basically he will take the word of the sgt over anyone else. Period. He believes that you shouln't get the permit before 30 days even if everything comes back in 10. He also stated that if it took longer than 30 well thats how it goes, that he would deal with that on a case by case basis if the person complained. He feels there isn't an issue because he hasn't heard about it from citizens in town meetings. Nevermind that most folk are afraid to say anything in fear of having their permit delayed. They dont want to rock the boat. Lets not forget that supposedly no one had complained about the additional paperwork requirements prior to me either, so how is no one has complained before even relevant. That whole statement sickens me, but I digress. Basically the new chief will go along with whatever the sgt that does thevpaerwork says and the sgt will continue to do whatever he like. So while we have no additional paperwork requirements, the process that had improved with the prior chief has reverted with the new.

I dont want to move. I will do my best to keep fighting. That said, I dont know. Like others the gun laws aren't the main reason, but the are the proverbial straw. As of this moment I'm staying and fighting, but I'm tired. The state has handed me so many beatings over the years and like a particularly mean bully, it feels lie they are seeking me out for more. My friends tell me that the only reason I haven't moved is my stubborness.

My brother called to see if there was any news. Was told by store it was looking like another week. I'm having a hard time not getting upset with the situation. Not at the store mind you their hands are tied. My issue lies with the state. I get it they decided to not allow ffls to use the federal nics system and opted to be a middleman. That being said you are middeman to citizens who are trying to excercise their rights. This is where when you notice that the two or three people that typically do the job are overwhelmed an you put more people on the job. It is not very complicated. Nor is the job of doing the nics check overly complicated. We arent applying for rose planting permits, we are following the assinine laws put in place to make exercising our rights most difficult. Yeah I know, I'm clapping with one hand. Just had to vent. I think I'm more frustrated with the whole situation than my brother is. I just wish that getting his first gun hadn't been like this. Your first gun should be a way better experiance on the whole.

Well today marks day 7 in my brothers wait for his instant check. Sadly, since it was a handgun he had no recourse as buying out of state would not have sped things up, hell likely would take longer as he would have to wait for it to ship then the true waiting would begin and thats assuming no delay cause the ffl wasnt on file with seller. He was so excited to be purchasing his first gun. The 2 month wait for the fpid and ptp dampened his enthusiasm some. The odd story that the city hadnt gotten his prints back and were waiting for them to be mailed had a bad odor about it. Especially when morpho and the state claim they were received the Next day. I couldnt help but get caught up in his excitement as he made his final choice, then share in his dejection at being told it would be three days before he got it. That was now 7 days ago and no estimate as to how much longer. This is sad. If you are denied or to use the nics term you are delayed you have a clear recourse. But your instant check takes a week, you must wait. I had always been under the impression that instant was an infinitesimal space of time so I must not understand what infinitesimal means, which I had believed it was a number very close to but slightly more than zero. Although the dictionary seems to agree with me, I must surely be wrong cause the state tells me so.

Ive been focused on what I could do to help fight the slew of new proposed antigun laws, so no I havent been up on the nics delays. Didnt think the press would be so much from NJ with its limited amount of fid owners as compared to people that live in free America. So is NJ or the feds the hold up.

Has anyone been having delays on nic checks? Im being told there is a 6-7 day delay.

Dont me my permission. Have at it. As for the 30 days thing... We'll see. I hadnt applied for my permit cause I refused to go through an illegal process. Now that it has changed... Well I should have enough funds for the prints in another week or so. I will be a pest at 30 days after they have the prints. Will update with results.

Perhaps I should start using the <sarcasm> tags again... Nah more fun watching some random guy jump on your comment. But no I never stop to think about anything. I just spout whatever is boiling at the top of my head. Any of my posts would tell you that. Should I use that tag? Nah why bother. Lololol

While I feel gun owners should pursue training pertinent to whatever aspect of firearms they persue and optimally in as many as they can, I am against mandatory training. Why? Simple, people that seek training will absorb and benefit from it. Someone forced to does not. I think that basic firearms safety ala the eddie eagle program should be taught at schools. This should be given equal time with the dare programs. Why? Simple, some kids have parents that are anti gun. As such its likely that the only exposre to firearms for these kids is from movies, tv and video games. Not the best place for them to get info and form an opinion. Seriously how many gun accidents could we prevent from simple education? Seems like common sense to teach them at young age about safety. Just like not drinkin bleach or sticking objects into electric sockets.

King mike maybe? Oh no thats the national guard he doesnt want coming to help cause they have guns. No bullets but evil evil guns.

Wow this thread has really blown up. While I expected some of it, some comments I should've but didn't see coming. I pay your salary/I don't work for you personally... Ok this one is in the middle and the original answer for ths one is still valid. While an individual citizens taxes aren't used specifically to pay a salary it does fund the various services, yet doesn't grant said citizen any special right nor supremacy. The moment you bring this up, you've lost any moral high ground you may have had. The moment the leo looks at it from the "your signature isn't on my paycheck", he has lost sight of his purpose which is to steal (as many deptarments adopted) LAs motto to protect and serve. Is it a one sided situation? Yes, but thats the job, not everything is fair. Example is the cashier that has to take customers lip about x product with a smile. Cashier knows they personally didnt do x but has to deal cause its the job. Thats not to say the citizen is always right, but a professional attitude even when the other person is wrong always gives you the moral high ground. You may recall the video of the trooper giving a citizen a ticket and said citizen screaming and yelling while the trooper just stood there and calmly told citizen he'd cite him for littering if he didnt pick up the ticket he just tore up. That is the standard. Did the leos act correctly? Yes and no. I do not know nor do I wish to speculate about premeditation from leo based on the prosecutor being present with a swat team. So just based on the scenario that played out, from a tactical pov it was not well executed just based on what was said and that seems to be based on poor communication. Yes there were weapons present. However it is a call to a location that units have rolled to before from a similar call. I mention this because it is pertinant. How? Well as the team is gearing up theyd want intel on the location and this is something that should come up, especially it being a small town as the op mentioned. Beyond that however bein out in the open leo can plainly see if the subjects were armed. Being they had the superior numbers, approaching with weapons at the low ready was more than adequate as the subjects had complied with leo instructions and were again visably disarmed. Upon reaching the subjects a pat down to ensure they didn't have any concealed weapons is appropiate to ensure the officers safety. But even prior to the pat down the officers should have had one watch th subjects while the others cleared the area around the vehicle, then pat downs. After which you can establish identities and what not. At this point no one should have had a gun in their face nor should have fingers been on the trigger. Once the weapons had been confirmed to not be fa, (though based on the ops statement about mag removal, I dont know how they were able to be satisfied, but thats acwhole different subject) then it is done. There is no suspicion of criminal intent nor probable cause to search the vehicle unless conceded to by the owner. The coping of the sns I feel is questionable as they could have just radioed them in for an instant check. For those confused no one present needed an fid because you dont need one to own a weapon, rather you need to buy. Many have weapons from when they lived in free America. I understand that things would have played out differently had the op advised leo what he was going to do. However he hadnt previously his prior encounter was the polar opposite. Again had he informed different results, but was he obligated to do so? No. Would it have been a courtious? Yes. Here is where it gets tricky, you see some will argue that the way things are and times have changed... Perhaps, but the laws have not. The fact is he was doing something perfectly legal and the responding leos overreacted. Danger is an inherent part of the job period. While the leos safety should be considered (and while it doesnt come into play in this situation) it is the publics safety that is paramount. Thats the job. Yes we all want you to go home safely at the end of your shift, but your safety isnt above the publics that you serve. That is the important distinction. It is my opinion (yes we all have them yes they all stink) that once an officer loses sight of that, then they need to reevaluate their career choice. To the poster that asked if this applied to other careers, the long and short of it is yes, most definately. You see the moment that a fireman is thinking only of his safety he is not effective in his job and places himself and others in harms way. Why because it causes indecision and lack of action which is extremely dangerous. Same for military. I served in combat mos's in both the army and Marines. Ive seen combat and thats just how it is. You act based on training. Acting is making informed choices based on training. Reacting is an emotional response that has no place in these situations. Do people have a negative view of leo? Most no, but those that do mostly have right to. Why? Well many and it seems that daily the number grws, leos have the impression that the badge gives them additional rights. It does not. What do I mean? Well a few examples. Officer a is speeding in his pov, gets pulled over flashes badge might even say I'm on the job. No ticket given. Ive seen no less than 8 times a drunk officer pulled over (still carrying off duty weapon btw) by leo and not arrested, in 5 cases I witnessed was allowed to drive away. This is even extended to family members. You cant convince me based on my person experiance especially when bolstered by others same so in effect leos get upset about us vs them when for the most part they have created this. These are just my $.0002 (adjusted for inflation) so take it for whats its worth. We can argue without fighting. Just dont let your emotions ecome involved, the moment you do it itsnt a discussion nr debate where each side argues their point. It is then a fight that is really a no I didnt yes you did parody. Sorry for spelling damn ipad....

After reading the scotus ruling on the open fields I am not convinced this passes muster. Ianal, but they were investigating a complaint and being posted private property, having made visual contact and gestured for persons on said property to approach, which they complied with and having no obvious weapons on their persons as they approached... I dont know, but I can see it go either way depending on the person arguing the case. But thats just my opinion based on limited research having only read 15 or so cases and the scotus decision. Regardless of the nonexpectation of privacy in open field, the vehicle search would still appear to be a clear violation unless consented. Also while the observation of the serial numbers as part of handling the weapons I can go with, I'm not feeling them writing them down. I am not a leo hater, but why is it you rarely if ever see a leo disagree with another leo?

I stand happily correct and am placing the 5.7 at the top of my must buy handgun list. I have no issues with being wrong and appreciate corrections when I am.

Times have changed... Well then that just makes it all right then huh. Time changes constantly thats its nature, we however need to remain constant in asserting our rights. Not even going to mention the drawing on the property owner and waiting to do so till 30 yards away. I will however comment on what sounds like an illegal search. From what I read credentials were established and no law seemed to have been broken. No probable cause, so unless you consented to a search when asked or informed that we are going to search your vehicle for your safety and ours... Ok (yeah that ok? Is asking for permission or remained silent thereby agreeing by not dissenting, flat out illegal search. On private property even had you had a holstered weapon which op stated he did not you have every right to carry it. Let me think about this, 2 guys in street clothes and several moderately armed officers in protective gear, who should be in fear? Im a nonactive US Marine (there are no former Marines) and have had weapons pointed at by friendlies and non friendlies. Never a good thing. In a hostile environment understandable. In the scene described not so much. Op & guest obviously had no rifles in hand and could easily be determined from 30yards so cops with vests as a minumium and I imagine that swat unit was more geared up than that, what was the fear? That the guy was gonna pull a 5.7 (can penetrate vest but illegal afaik in NJ) and take out whole team before they could respond? Now weapons at the ready I can let slide, still I'd be pissed but ok. Why is it ok in NJ but not the mojority of the country. Oh yeah forgot times have changed.

<rant> Why is it that everytime there is a tragedy and some lunatic kills a bunch of people, right on its heels you can hear the cry to ban guns? Yeah, for most it is just a knee jerk reaction. But seriously, can someone show me where a ban on something has actually had a positive effect? I'm sure there are example out there, its just that I personally am not aware of any. The examples I can think of are just a few, but they didn't work out as planned. I recall the words of the Rev. Billy Sunday "The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories andour jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent." Didn't exactly work out that way did it? From 1914 to 1932 there was a 561% rise in federal convictions. (source cato institute) Most of those were guilty of violations of the Volstead act.The homicide rate jumped from 6 per 100,000 pre-Prohibition to nearly 10per 100,000 in 1933. That was reversed by the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, and continued to decline through the 1930s and early 1940s. This also saw the birth of organized crime in the US. The war on drugs a term coined by Richard Nixon, wow that was 1971. In 2008 alone 1.5 million american were arrested in the war on drugs. This gave a rise to the street gangs and cartels. I can't even begin to tally the number of deaths attributed to this war. It continues to this day. While a Constitutional argument can be made based on the pursuit of happiness for both of these, they are not in of themselves specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Now there is a call for a ban on guns. A cry so strong that many of those on the fence wanting to look like they care have jumped to the side of the banners. Whats shocking to me is that we are even considering this as there is an entire amendment that has but 27 words and 3 commas that states our rights on firearms. Not a subject where we can use the Constitution to make and argumnet based on the pursuit of happiness or liberty, no it is specifically about that. It is pretty clear and uses simple wording. That being said we have not followed those words. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Yet we have passed laws that have in fact infringed on those rights. Yes there are many that aren't opposed to sensible restrictions on that right and I'm not going to argue for nor against those, I am merely stating the simple fact. The right of the peoplelto keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Any law that resticts or puts any conditions on that right is an infringement. Again I am not arguing for or against any of those regulation just using definitions. Now based on history and using 2 common examples on prohibitions and how well they have worked, mindful that these aren't specifically protected rights we see how we the people have responded to them. People still do drugs as did people continue to consume alcohol. How do you think we the people will react to a gun ban? A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution. A natural right not granted by said document but still protected by it. When will the people wake up to the fact that gun control is in fact not about guns but about control. Do we as a country really have to go through this again? Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás aka George Santayana once said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Well have have numerous worldwide examples of gun control. Germany, England, Russia, Australia and Mexico spring to mind. It doens't work. How about we try a differnt tact. How about we try less restrictive gun laws and see how that works out? After all we have examples of those as well. Switzerland, France (wait what France? Yeah France where silencers are bought over the counter) hell Isrealis have fully automatic weapons at home. What makes them better than us? </rant>

Apparently he was on pills. http://www.businessinsider.com/adam-lanza-taking-antipsychotic-fanapt-2012-12 Fanapt is one of a many drugs the FDA pumped out with an ability to exact the opposite desired effect on people: that is, you know, inducing rather than inhibiting psychosis and aggressive behavior. Guess that answers part of the question

Well there you go, that solves everything. We just need a precrime unit, that way they can stop people before they do anything wrong...

Can someone explain how stricter laws wouldve prevented this tragedy? Looks like the shooter broke a number of laws. I don't see how further compromising an unalienable right would help. Not trying to stir anything up, I am just tired of people jumping in on a tragedy to further their agenda. Especially when what they want is flat out unconstitutional, or does that even matter anymore? Yes we have had more mass shootings than typical. Yes its tragic. No it shouldnt happen. While everyone is focused on the tool the crime was commited with, where are the questions as to why? Not a conspiracy theorist, but if all of this years shooters had mental issues, shouldnt we be looking to see how we an do something about that. I mean in a commercial this am I hear the disclaimer that anti-depressants can cause feelings of suicide. How effed up is that? So what drugs i any was dude on? What were these others taking and is there any corralation?

Id be interested in gun ownership numbers in these towns as well as how racial numbers skew. With a large and diverse populations that tend to cluster and man of these having very diverse views and or beliefs regarding gun ownership.