Jump to content

NJGF

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1,062

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by NJGF

  3. Posted

    The state is OK in most cases while Philadelphia is extremely restrictive.

    Pennsylvania:
    http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=9&sctn=8&subsctn=0

    § 908.  Prohibited offensive weapons.

    (a)  Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.

    (c)  Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

    "Firearm."  Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.

    "Offensive weapons."  Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.


    Philadelphia:
    https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2700358&GUID=EB21B1CA-11F0-4B3C-AAA9-3BE87C1A7624

    § 10-820.  Cutting Weapons in Public Places.

    (1) Definition.
    Cutting Weapon. Any knife or other cutting instrument which can be used as a weapon that has a cutting edge similar to that of a knife. No tool or instrument commonly or ordinarily used in a trade, profession or calling shall be considered a cutting weapon while actually being used in the active exercise of that trade, profession or calling.

    (2) Prohibited Conduct. No person shall use or possess any cutting weapon upon the public streets or upon any public property at any time.
        (a)  Exception:  This restriction shall not apply to the use and possession of cutting tools by emergency personnel of the Philadelphia Fire Department, whether on or off duty.

    (3) Penalty. The penalty for violation of this Section shall be a fine of not less than three hundred (300) dollars and imprisonment of not less than ninety days.

  4. Posted

    14 minutes ago, capt14k said:

     As Griz said the guy got off. Being arrested for a fictitious crime is pretty good grounds for a false arrest suit.

    But it still makes for a pretty lousy day even if you win down the road.

    btw: I agree I am overly cautious and it is a pain. When I go to a pistol match I have to load 6 mags at the start and unload them at the end.

    • Like 1

  5. Posted

    I believe that Ohio also had a case where a loaded mag was considered a firearm. Much easier to just lock up the firearm separately from the locked ammo and not become a test case. I put two pistol rugs in a backpack (one for the pistol and the second for a box of ammo), put a small luggage lock on both rugs, and put the backpack in the trunk. Patiently waiting for incoming .....

  7. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Barms said:

    “I give $500 to goodwill and $500 to Red Cross but I get like 30% back in tax deduction”.    Oh no you won’t if you standard deduction.

    The unintended consequences of this may be that charities see a drop in donations which would not be a good thing.

    I'm not sure that will happen as I wish to believe that most people give to charities not because of the tax deduction.

  8. Posted

    I think it is a more complicated.

    For AMT you get a much larger deduction so many people don't have to pay it. I believe that the final law still has AMT just with an even larger deduction.

    As your income went up you weren't getting all of those itemized deductions anyway (separate from AMT). They took away some of them as your income rose. The same is true for your exemptions. Your accountant or you had to fill out a bunch of worksheets to figure this out.

    Capital gains makes it even more complicated.

    I don't think we are getting to that 3x5 return that Trump spoke about anytime soon.

    You can get a ballpark of how you would do under the new tax plan by using the Tax Plan Calculator at: http://taxplancalculator.com/ You just enter a few numbers from your 2016 return to find out. It also has a good relatively simple explanation of what is changing (well the AMT explanation is a little bit more complicated).

  9. Posted

    3 hours ago, Mike J. said:

    ..... Word in the industry is that Verizon is allowing the system to die off and pushing voip and other alternatives to work on getting POTS customers off the system and so that they can eventually pull the plug on the service. Will this happen soon? No, it will likely be many years before Verizon entirely kills off POTS service.

    I still have POTS and Verizon really tries to push you into fiber. The lines, I believe, are purposely not "maintained well" so they do go down. When you contact them they push fiber. They can't force you off without regulatory changes but they do their best.

    I even had a Verizon repair guy coming to my door saying they were converting everyone in the neighborhood and would convert me that day. I politely said no.

    It cost Verizon to maintain these lines so they will do anything to get you off. I get snail mails everyday about converting.

    And yes somewhere down the street (sometimes miles away) it does get converted to fiber.

  11. Posted

    5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

    Depends on the state.  Never heard of "defiant tresspass" in NJ.

    https://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2016/title-2c/section-2c-18-3/
    2016 New Jersey Revised Statutes

    Section 2C:18-3 - Unlicensed Entry Of Structures; Defiant Trespasser; Peering Into Dwelling Places; Defenses.

    2C:18-3. a. Unlicensed entry of structures. A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or surreptitiously remains in any research facility, structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, or in or upon utility company property, or in the sterile area or operational area of an airport. An offense under this subsection is a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a school or on school property. The offense is a crime of the fourth degree if it is committed in a dwelling. ....

    .....

    b.Defiant trespasser. A person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

    (1)Actual communication to the actor; or

    (2)Posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    6 hours ago, GRIZ said:

    Article VI of the COTUS establishes the COTUS and all laws made by Congress to be the law if the land and enforceable in every state.  A state does not have an option to follow Federal law.  It must.

    The only reason states are getting away being sanctuary states and marijuana laws is because there were 8 years of Obamanocchio.

    Don't the feds have to enforce federal laws not the states. The INS can go into any state and detain and deport any undocumented/illegal people. The states can help if they chose but they are not violating any laws by not.

    Didn't AZ get slapped down a few years by trying to enforce the immigration laws and were told by the feds to stop (I know I am probably missing some details on this).

  17. Posted

    On 12/1/2017 at 9:13 PM, Ray Ray said:

    YouTube is entertainment.  Yeager is entertainment.  He is actually a nice guy.  Now, there are other YouTube personalities who are total dicks but seem like O.K guys on screen.

    I used to watch Yeager and then grew tired of him and unsubscribed. On the other hand in the last few days I have seen a couple of video's supporting him and saying in person he is real nice guy (funny he sounds like a rougher Trump). Take a look at SkinnyMedic's and Sootch00's video;s about him.


    Sootch00

     

     

    SkinnyMedic

     

     

    • Like 1

  18. Posted

    33 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

    I just got off the phone with Congressman Lance's aide at his DC office. Had a about a 5-min conversation with him - when I get a moment I'll type up more details (maybe in a separate thread), but suffice it to say I was disappointed on multiple fronts. Related to your point, one of his last comments when I asked about expected next steps was this: "The Senate is not expected to take this up." So, there you go.. direct from the swamp. 

    So the only chance we have is for more pro 2A Senators to be elected. Franken's resignation might put them in play in a 2018 special election to fill out the remaining 4 years of his term.

    The coming election can be good as I think I read that there are something like 10 D senators in states that were carried by Trump (I am not 100% sure about which states, etc). So a pickup of 8 senators would create a filibuster proof majority and truly allow this to pass. So I will be optimistic about this. Unfortunately we have to deal with our next governor in the here and now which is not going to be pretty.

    I used to laugh at it but hope and change is becoming my mantra (lol)

  19. Posted

    This is how a state supreme court should act. The Deleware Supreme Court goes further than Heller in striking down state agencies that effectively eliminated the right to carry arms in state parks.

    The Deleware constitution includes the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self, home, family, and state. Unfortunately New Jersey does not.

    The opinion is an interesting read.

    https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=266310

    "This appeal concerns guns and, as such, has attracted numerous amici curiae raising
    politically fraught questions concerning gun rights.1 However, at its core, this case raises
    straightforward questions of Delaware constitutional and administrative law. We are asked
    whether unelected officials from the State’s parks and forest departments, whose power is
    expressly limited, can ban (except for a narrow exception for hunting) the possession of
    guns in state parks and forests in contravention of Delawareans’ rights under the State’s
    constitution. Clearly they cannot. They lack such authority because they may not pass
    unconstitutional laws, and the regulations completely eviscerate a core right to keep and
    bear arms for defense of self and family outside the home -- a right this Court has already
    recognized. As such, the regulations are unconstitutional on their face. Thus, we
    REVERSE for these reasons and those that follow."

    • Like 2

  23. Posted

    On 12/6/2017 at 0:07 AM, GRIZ said:

    I understand your point. But you're talking 1789 and 1868 not 2017.

    The COTUS and laws passed by Congress are the law of the land.  It says so in the COTUS.  When states violate the rights guaranteed in the COTUS that's when the Federal government steps in.  From my perspective most SCOTUS cases are 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendment issues.

    Rather than plead cases in front of SCOTUS Congress has taken the perogative and is passing a law first.  Each states requirements for a carry permit define that state's interpretation of the 2A.

    There are what? Maybe 10 antigun states to varying degrees?  40 others are progun to different degrees.  If...and I doubt if, this ever goes to SCOTUS all that in taken into consideration.  This is when the antigun states will argue this law is in violation of the 10A.

    Going to SCOTUS over this law is a crapshoot I don't think liberals want to try.

    Thanks for the response. After doing some more research I am now seeing where I was wrong (seems to happen every day). This is a 2A case which was declared by Heller/McDonald to be an individual right and because of the 14th amendment Congress has the right to pass any laws to effectively enforce this against any state infringements. I supported it because I wanted it but now I see it would be perfectly OK from a constitutional perspective (which is what bothered me if it wasn't). Thanks again.

  24. Posted · Edited by NJGF
    Dup copy

    2 hours ago, Mrs. Peel said:

    Yeah, he was working on cell phone towers I believe. Had a gun in his vehicle because he works in desolate areas. Man, did HE get railroaded too. There's been TOO many cases of abuse! We should make sure that EVERYONE knows these cases - cuz they sure as shit won't be profiling them on Dateline or 60 Minutes.

    I believe he was from Georgia.

×
×
  • Create New...