Buns of Guns

There was a school group discussion on Gun Control held at Drexel this past Wednesday. Only four people ended up showing - including myself. One student started out with the assertion that guns make people egotistical, and immediately cited the rhetoric of hypothetical road rage resulting in violence because a gun was handy. I responded by saying that somebody who is willing to kill someone over a traffic dispute is not likely to follow the laws that say it is illegal for him to carry weapons to begin with. I also introduced to them the history of "Shall Issue" and how 44 states have adopted the policy, further disproving the perception of trigger-happy gun nuts breaking into frequent shootouts. After explaining the law and the real meaning of the Second Amendment, they eventually became disgusted with gun control. I learned that any reasonable, open-minded person will stand for gun rights once informed. Misinformation, irrationality, and stubbornness are the only things holding back the prevalence gun ownership in this county. But the Anti-Gun lobby can only go so far as to inhibit critical thinking, which is why I believe that more people will become gun owners as the word gets out. Besides, nobody can deny that guns are just awesome to have.

Hey! How far are you from 55?

Greetings! Hope you like it here.

Crap! I just voted "yes" by accident.... Just kidding! Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

So if I understand you correctly, you can legally have in your possession all of the collapsible stocks, pistol grips, and uppers complete with bayonet lugs and flash hiders as you chose AS LONG AS you don't have a receiver in your possession? Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk

Not to sound stupid, but is NJ.com traditionally anti-gun?

The poll question is irrelevant. NJ lawmakers to not have the power to reduc[e] the size of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 rounds. This is said with the assumption that criminals and madmen will comply with the restriction and universally limit their magazines to ten rounds.

Similar question: Can I legally have a non compliant upper and lower parts (less the receiver) shipped to my house if my current AR15 is kept elsewhere, so that it is not in my possession when my upper and lower parts arrive? Is there constructive intent?

Right, but they (SCOTUS) forced local government to let their citizens have that choice, such as in D.C. and Chicago. Simply put, government at any level is forbidden from banning loaded guns at a person's home.

Yes you do have a right to a loaded handgun at home. . This is coupled with NJ law saying that nothing in the statutes shall prevent a person from carrying at home, and the 2008 Heller v DC which said you can't be required to keep guns unloaded at home. If you are arguing that we don't have the right to a loaded handgun at home, then that would mean our legislature could ban the carry of loaded guns anywhere they wanted to.

Acknowledged. It is restricted in public areas.

Thank you! Going back and forth to Philadelphia made me think about this frequently. If you are going to get attacked, the aggressor is probably going to do it while you are getting out of the car and getting your valuables from the trunk. I didn't mention this to be nitpicky and I don't need my meds (right now anyway). The law is structured quite differently. First of all, CA state law doesn't ban open carry [EDIT: a law passed the legislature in 2012 making it illegal in most areas]. Second of all, local government has a lot more to do with issuing permits, which are obtainable in most counties. Thirdly, there is no "directly to or from" requirement. And while the laws might seem similar, what will get you a slap on the wrist in CA will land you in prison in NJ.

Do you have a right in NJ to a loaded handgun while on your own property? Yes Do you have a right in NJ to transport your handgun to exempted locations from your property? Yes, as long as it is properly stored and unloaded. How do you get your handgun properly unloaded and stored without either a.) doing so on your own property, which forces you to waive your right to a loaded handgun while on your own property? b.) doing so after leaving your own property, which is illegal possession of a handgun? Case a.) contradicts the law which states that nothing in the statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him" since complying with the manner in which handguns are to be transported prevented a person from keeping and carrying about his premises. Case b.) can land you in prison.

It blows the "We don't want Frontier Day shootouts in NJ" rhetoric out of the water. Our politicians should get with the times if they claim to be so progressive! It is absolutely archaic nowadays to deny law abiding citizens CCW rights.

Oh... so yes in that case we are definitely more of a red state. According to Maryland Shall Issue we are no issue and Maryland is "special-issue".

Since when is NJ a red state? I thought we've been blue since the 80's.

I think that NJ's unconstitutionality is far worse than that in other May Issue/Non Issue states. If there were a serious case being heard (in our favor) it would involve the following: The state's inherent inability to rule on "justifiable"ness for the reason that they don't know when nor why a person will be attacked and a firearm is the only reasonable means of self defense. Maybe this is similar to the "Good Cause" requirement in CA, but then again one county's definition is different from another's. In NJ, the presumption of innocence before being proven guilty is reversed for those exercising their 2nd amendment rights outside the home (moving, going to the range..) The judge in Brian Aitken's case said that there was not substantial evidence to show that Aitken qualified for an exemption. It's clear that the burden of proof was not on the state, but on the defendant. It should be the prosecution's burden to produce enough evidence to show that the defendant did not quality for an exemption and was in violation of the law. Otherwise, it would be the gun owner's duty to document the entire trip so as to prove he was not making an unreasonable deviation. Anytime you are leaving the house with a handgun, the law requires that it be unloaded and wrapped. But guns don't unload and wrap themselves the second you step off of your property. What this equates to is a small time frame where the gun owner is disarmed while on his own property. And even NJ law says that nothing in our statutes "shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him". Likewise, when you return home from an exempted location, your gun does not unwrap and load itself the second you step onto your own property.

The only reason anyone should comply and register their rifles, is if they want to still use those rifles at a local range. But if it were me, my remedy would be to simply purchase or make a compliant gun for the range. As we've seen in NYC, registration can only give you more legal headaches down the road. Plus I'm not too enthusiastic about letting the government know what weapons I have as a matter of principle.

She did a pretty good Piers Morgan impression

I'd like to meet her, but I'm not too keen on buying a book from her. I wonder if she'll sign pirated digital copies?

That is unbelievable. You're hard pressed to find a single election within 10% margin of victory.

That still blows! Especially if you don't have any active permits on hand.

What if they replace the frame with a different s/n?

Charlie Padula is the man. I can thank him for my Utah Permit. Philadelphia class February 2013!

Who says the ammo has to be separate?