Jump to content

68chris

Members
  • Content Count

    100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Community Reputation

17 Good

1 Follower

About 68chris

  • Rank
    NJGF Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    central, nj

Recent Profile Visitors

561 profile views
  1. Here is the proper way to read this to clear up any confusion. In the above bill, commas are ‘ands’. To qualify to carry in NJ, as a NJ resident, you must meet all of the reqirements written that are seperated by commas and the final “and” at the end of the sentence. A comma is never used to describe the last of multiple items. “and” is used. NJ residents should not care what is written after the “or”, it means nothing and does not apply to NJ residents.
  2. “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
  3. Is the OP breaking any laws just keeping his item? Once it is in his house isnt he protected under the home exemption?
  4. My friend will be in Rutherford on Wednesday repairing a slate roof. He said on Raymond ave. Should I pm you his info?
  5. It is true, only at the Federal level will we see any relief here in NJ. Either a US Supreme court decision (like a Peruta, which btw is awaiting cert right now) or a National Reciprocity Bill like the Hudson one....let's hope for both of the above. Our elected representatives here in NJ would not let Christie even add a word or two to our justifiable scheme. It is a travesty. A Hudson type law and or Peruta type positive US Supreme court decision are our only hope.
  6. Really nothing to elaborate or any big news to report, it was more of a "Hang in there, everyone is focusing on Healthcare and Gorsuch nomination right now" from Rep. Hudson. A two minute video interview from Hudson regarding HR38 is a definite must watch for us. The text, as Sam pointed out, was a cut and paste job with old information.
  7. You missed the video. Click play if you are so inclined and if you have the 2:19 minutes to spare.
  8. Hudson 3/22 update: https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/3/22/rep-richard-hudson-an-update-on-national-reciprocity/
  9. Nothing to object to here, other than some whining op-eds to the NY times. There will be no 3rd circuits or any circuits for that matter. There will be no scoutus here either. A law is a law. "from wiki" Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts.[1] Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws. Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts. In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
  10. There is no such thing as an injunction here and there will be no litigation.
×
×
  • Create New...