Imaginos

i haven't hit this yet ( I hate having a budget) but it seems like a step up from trying to get off from work during the same 2 hour window when designated cops is available to accept them..

Well the cited decision seems to cite 3 incidents in 13 years as the threshold, but the age of them now seems to count with a vague "years" being the cut off. This however is why the fact the send investigatory letters to your work, spouse , or anyone else mentioned on the "approved form" or the unapproved extra forms is such a big deal. It is a fishing attempt to find grounds like this for denial. This is what really sunk him, the version of events in the police record could have been challenged, until he confirmed them in open court.. that pretty much kills any hearsay claim in the appeal (on the other hand one of the cited cases more or less said that asserting your 5ht amendment right show guilt (or at least it is ok for the judge to presume so) which flies in the face of every 5th amendment decision ever (how the hell did State v. Cordoma not end up in front of the supreme court?) That said it was better than perjury (never a good idea). So short version unless the record is completely wrong.. you are always better off just shutting up and letting the records speak for themselves

While I agree that you are correct about the use of the word absolute, the example of a rally permit does bring into play the exactly the difference. While the laws do permit for the city council to require a permit to hold a rally downtown, there are very strong strong restrictions on the government on how they are allowed set those restrictions. For example they cannot prevent the rally because they might not like what is going to be said at it. In fact their restrictions pretty much have to be limited to dealing with the safety of the public and the participants, and even then they generally have to allow for the rally if those risks can be mitigated if not they the courts have to start looking at it as an issue of prior restraint and t they have a very narrow window under which they can evaluate that. If the logic that NJ uses for the 2A were applied to the first you would have to get government issued press credentials in order to start a blog.

More for FYI I cant find a specific statemnet on this change, however using the wayback machine i can see that both Utah and PA have altered their sites sometime between feb 1st of this year and now.. and both currently list Utah has not being recognized by PA.. SO i would assume this is legit.. Current sites: Utah : http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html PA: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=184 Old sites: Utah: https://web.archive.org/web/20131015152231/http://publicsafety.utah.gov/bci/FAQother.html PA: https://web.archive.org/web/20140201181310/http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/crime.aspx?id=184

I would think not unless the PA club has " has filed a copy of its charter with the superintendent and annually submits a list of its members to the superintendent and provided further that the firearms are carried in the manner specified in subsection g. of this section;" Which seems unlikely if its even possible.

Edit: Never mind read more..

Unless he has a warrant then no, you don't even have to answer his question, but in the real world there is little advantage to being difficult.

I know i'm beating a dead horse while preaching to the choir, but damn this pisses me off. The law says 30 days.. and this is the NJ state POLICE openly and without any fear of consequence admitting they have no intention of following the law. Admitting in fact they have every single intention of breaking it. I'm pretty sure if you told them that you were going being leaving their parking lot doing 90 mph they wold have had 3 guys ready and able to stop you on the way out. It's like in the "compliance" thread when people are really happy to report a turn-around of 60 days. It's like being happy that you only got mugged and not beaten. Sure on a real world basis i would rather just get mugged than getting beaten and mugged, but I don't think I would actually be happy with either. </end rant>

The problem with this that the laws that pas here have a nasty habit of becoming "models" for other states and feds. The NRA would not have had to spend a fortune fighting the federal AWB if they had managed to stop the NJ one. SO while leaving might be the greatest protest, it leaves this state even tighter in the grips of the anti s which will use use our legislature, and courts to incubate the next big ban that will end up following you when the anti s in whatever state you move to use the "success" of the NJ law as their drumbeat.

Well the law about aggregate numbers for permit holders that Christie just signed might help show that this law creates a defacto ban on ccw

I don't even understand how the "terror watchlist" thing can be implemented. The TSC (actual name of the list) makes it very very clear that the list is to be kept secret (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/nsb/tsc/tsc_faqs) including the fact they will neither confirm nor deny if someone is on it. I would assume they require the same from the users of their list (ie the PD running the background check). At the same time a FID or P2P denial requires the denying agency to to provide a reason for the denial. this seems like a conflict. To take it a step further, the TSC justifies the secrecy based on the idea that if a terrorist can check if they are on the list then the terror group can pick someone who isn't on the list to do their evil deed. This law would create a defacto method by which the terrorists could bypass this secrecy ie. they apply for a FID and if comes back ok they know the person is clear, if it is denied there is a real good chance that "agent" is already flagged and not usable for their current mission. i cant imagine the FBI allowing the system to be used in this way.

I gotta say if you can't scrape up the $58 bucks for FPID i have no idea how you plan to pay for the mods you are talking about doing.. or even buying ammo for this thing, this is not a cheap hobby. I suspect you are more worried about the "issues" you had with your previous town's police and government. FWIW... I have never personally heard of anyone getting tagged under the "public interest" clause, but even if that were to come into play denials can be appealed, and as bad as the courts can be a "public interest" denial is tricky for the local pd to defend especially if it's based some other town's claim that you are troublemaker. The fact is if your new local PD does their job they will still do a full look-up on your past regardless of the amount of time that passed. So better deal with sooner rather than later. As for the why the restrictions that come into play in transporting without a FPID can be pretty arduous. Lets assume worst case.. you take this gun to a gunsmith to make the mods you want (legal) a week later you pick it up and start heading home (legal) halfway there you get a flat, so you call AAA they tow you to local garage to fix the tire no you have a stop.. if you have a FPID this is not a problem, however without one under NJ laws you just committed a felony. If you think $58 bucks to get a FPID is alot wait until you see what a lawyer wants to just listen to your side of the story.

I might have a misunderstanding of either current NJ law and/or this bill, but considering the "secretly embedded in the DL" option wouldn't that impact long gun purchases both from out of state dealer ( If they don't have the scanner they can insure you have a FPID) as well as face to face long gun transfers (same basic idea)?

This.. Think about one of the most effective anti-gun PR moves this year was MAIG's move of getting "hunters" on camera to support "common sense" gun laws. All of the anti groups have ONE goal to remove the "gun culture" from the USA. That is it and they will take anything we give them as as step towards that final goal, and they are winning.. They are winning to the point that if we manage to get a new restriction watered down we call it a victory. An actual victory would a repeal of law that restricts our natural rights, all we have gotten so far for our best efforts is reduced defeats.

Im still glad he vetoed it . First it punishes gun makers for making guns that's just trite and childish at best, borderline extortion at worst. Second given the shape of the NJ pension system is in it's stupid for the state to turn it's back on any investment that generate a positive return

If im reading the final version right, the provisions that allow law enforcement to seize a FID (commitment, domestic violence) woulod not result in them seizing your Driver's license

DMV will not issue a non-driver id card if you have a valid driver licence.

Now if they were to actually improve the technology and go to quick look up at purchase system then the 7 day wait might come into play

That is of course always the best option.. however I'm not going to fault her, because that option implicitly includes either the 1st or 2nd choice.. How long can you afford to sit in jail while the law sorts it out. If her cultural beliefs has issues with being alone with a man she is not married to, can you imagine how she would feel about being in the county system for a few days? Part of the problem is how a local hack judge can set that kind of bail or requirement. When i was young I got pulled over and had a warrant for an overdue speeding ticket in a different town (young dumb and all that). So the cops call the judge in the middle of the night and i get held on $1500 bail no 10% option, no bond. I spent the weekend in jail with actual killers who had a lower bail requirement. I managed to get out by Monday a few weeks later i appear before the judge, it turns out he takes non-appearance as a personal insult, once he found out that i did miss any of HIS court appearances his whole attitude changed. He reduced my fines and charges to the minimum and sent me on my way. My point is that she should have never had to face that choice.

Your point is dead on.. however I cant stop chuckling at the idea of a silencer for an airgun.