Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

You do not need to go to an FFL. The instructions on how to execute a pistol permit that is exempt from the NICS check can be found here: https://www.njsp.org/firearms/pdf/Person_Person_transfer_NICS_exemption.pdf

not to hi-jack the thread, but on a similar topic.

 

Similar scenario... Lets say a husband passes away, pistol not in the will. Deceased husband had the pistol for 50 years and bought out of state back then. Moved into NJ  40 years ago and brought pistol with. The surviving wife automatically/legally inherits the pistol after husbands death; said wife does NOT have a FID or pistol permits, etc. Never owned a gun before, etc.    Widowed wife wants to gift said pistol to son who has FID and can get pistol permits.

Does the process suggested to the original poster apply to this scenario? Beings widow who inherited pistol does not have a FID or SB#, can she still gift it to son who has FID and pistol permit-and do so without FFL assistance?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, eyeinstine said:

not to hi-jack the thread, but on a similar topic.

 

Similar scenario... Lets say a husband passes away, pistol not in the will. Deceased husband had the pistol for 50 years and bought out of state back then. Moved into NJ  40 years ago and brought pistol with. The surviving wife automatically/legally inherits the pistol after husbands death; said wife does NOT have a FID or pistol permits, etc. Never owned a gun before, etc.    Widowed wife wants to gift said pistol to son who has FID and can get pistol permits.

Does the process suggested to the original poster apply to this scenario? Beings widow who inherited pistol does not have a FID or SB#, can she still gift it to son who has FID and pistol permit-and do so without FFL assistance?

 

 

Yes. You do not need to have any permission slips to part with a firearm, only to acquire one.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note . . . In both of the cases here, I believe that the gun must have been legally purchased even if out of state or prior to NJ's gun law growth.  How you would prove, or the government disprove, that after 50 years is another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, EdF said:

Just a note . . . In both of the cases here, I believe that the gun must have been legally purchased even if out of state or prior to NJ's gun law growth.  How you would prove, or the government disprove, that after 50 years is another story.

There is nothing that I can see anywhere that stipulates this. There are too many possibilities for a gun to come into someone's possession legally without any official paper trail. In eyeinstine's example the gun was inherited through marital shared property so most likely was never recorded as a transfer anywhere - and frankly it is none of the government's business what happened before they decided to take control.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/8/2021 at 10:23 AM, EdF said:

Just a note . . . In both of the cases here, I believe that the gun must have been legally purchased even if out of state or prior to NJ's gun law growth.  How you would prove, or the government disprove, that after 50 years is another story.

Good point.

However, remember it's the prosecution's job to prove you guilty.  You don't have to prove your innocence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few, and I believe in our justice system, but like anything else it is not perfect. I also believe that history has shown us that not all prosecutors and defense teams are completely altruistic in their approach, which may result in a miscarriage of justice. I admit "in theory" may have been to strong a term so I'm going with "mostly fact".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bennj said:

Just a few, and I believe in our justice system, but like anything else it is not perfect. I also believe that history has shown us that not all prosecutors and defense teams are completely altruistic in their approach, which may result in a miscarriage of justice. I admit "in theory" may have been to strong a term so I'm going with "mostly fact".

Nothing is perfect.

Altruistic may be the wrong term too.  Prosecutors are doing what they're paid for when they prosecute cases. They are paid to get convictions. Defense attorneys defend people.  Most importantly introduce a reasonable doubt the jury understands.

We're way off topic here.  Start another thread on this and it can be discussed further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Prosecutors are doing what they're paid for when they prosecute cases.

Not in Chicago from what I've seen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, brucin said:

Not in Chicago from what I've seen.

@brucin you are correct. But that's a Liberal scumhole for years.  Politics in Chicago trumps everything.  There's a lot of that shown on "Chicago PD".

A  prosecutor makes their rep by their conviction rate.  Their are many prosecutors that dismiss cases (malum prohibitive crimes, no one was hurt, no one was robbed)  because they serve no cause for justice.  PM me and I'll give you examples.

You have to understand an asst prosecutor in NJ may have a few hundred cases on his plate.

A defense attorney makes their rep by getting defendants off or getting charges reduced.  If you have a good defense attorney you will never go to trial.  Your attorney will have the charges dismissed or plea to reduced charges.

The best criminal defense attorney I know told me (paraphrasing), "The best training for a defense attorney is to be a prosecutor for a few years".

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree they certainly have to pick their battles but what is going on in Dem run cities is dereliction of duty plain and simple.

After watching the video of several gangbangers shooting at each other and no charges brought I would hope the voters of Chirac WTFU and run Kim Foxx out of town on a rail. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...