One carry permit for all handguns?

[Lostboy 105]

3 hours ago, samiam said:

Exactly The "Protect and Serve" slogan is PR at best, poor joke at worst. The mission of the police is to apprehend and arrest anyone who is breaking the law. Anything beyond that is incidental, or might possibly even run counter to the mission. No civilian is obligated, legally, or imo, morally, to physically protect anyone else, unless that obligation is voluntary and deliberate. 

Why not morally? Y'all sound like you took a class at the Uvalde recruitment center. I'm not saying youre wrong, but I think anyone who is carrying a firearm has a moral obligation to be vigilant and save the lives of others in the event that such a situation should occur. At least within one's immediate vicinity.

[EngineerJet 191]

4 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

Why not morally? Y'all sound like you took a class at the Uvalde recruitment center. I'm not saying youre wrong, but I think anyone who is carrying a firearm has a moral obligation to be vigilant and save the lives of others in the event that such a situation should occur. At least within one's immediate vicinity.

I already told my wife, my priority is the safety of our family. If there is a way to get my family to safety I'm taking it. If my family is safe and shots are still going off, with no cops in sight? She's accepted that I might not be able to stand by. 

[Lucky Lefty 112]

17 hours ago, Lucky Lefty said:

Gonna give them a shout tomorrow and see what they say about this.. will report back

Reached out to US LawShield.

Was told I will hear back from one of their attorneys with 24 to 72 hours.

Will relay info here right after I hear from them.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

6 hours ago, Lostboy said:

 If you're not willing to be the good guy with the gun, why bother with the permit at all?

Not my job.....  they should have armed themselves....  

My job, is not to be a good samaritan,, when the very people you would likely try to 'protect' will try to have a payday, on YOU....

I carry to protect myself and my wife when we are together...my responsibilities stop there....

I am not  a commando, I am not a Leo, I am not a sheepdog for anyone but my children and wife...maybe not a popular stance but hey it works for me.

36 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

 Y'all sound like you took a class at the Uvalde recruitment center. 

They are paid and trained to do that...you we arent....

[Lucky Lefty 112]

Don't mean to further derail original topic, but having the mindset of being morally obligated to be a vigilante is a very dangerous position to take... those with that approach should have gone the route of LEO, as opposed to civilian with a carry permit. (And as mentioned, even LEO are not obligated to protect you).

Having a permit to carry is to protect yourself from life threatening situations involving yourself and your family. The permit does not imply you now have a duty to save others. If the stars align and you have the brief moment where your backstop is safe and you may be able to takedown an active shooter (i.e. indiana), this is the extreme exception.. not the rule. Pulling out your firearm with intention on firing it, should be the absolute last resort behind getting you and your family to safety.

I hope the large majority of us do not walk around thinking we are going to save the day, or hunt down the active shooter in walmart. Protect yourself and don't try to be a hero unless you have no other choice.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[Lostboy 105]

29 minutes ago, Lucky Lefty said:

Don't mean to further derail original topic, but having the mindset of being morally obligated to be a vigilante is a very dangerous position to take... those with that approach should have gone the route of LEO, as opposed to civilian with a carry permit. (And as mentioned, even LEO are not obligated to protect you).

Having a permit to carry is to protect yourself from life threatening situations involving yourself and your family. The permit does not imply you now have a duty to save others. If the stars align and you have the brief moment where your backstop is safe and you may be able to takedown an active shooter (i.e. indiana), this is the extreme exception.. not the rule. Pulling out your firearm with intention on firing it, should be the absolute last resort behind getting you and your family to safety.

I hope the large majority of us do not walk around thinking we are going to save the day, or hunt down the active shooter in walmart. Protect yourself and don't try to be a hero unless you have no other choice.

I didn't use the word vigilante. I used the word vigilant. As in, be vigilant of your surroundings. Which is exactly how it was used. I also didn't say you have a duty to do anything. I said in my opinion you have a moral obligation to neutralize a threat especially if it's in your immediate vacinity. I should have worded that better. If you can sleep at night knowing you could have saved some lives and didn't that's wonderful. All of this really doesn't matter anyway because most public spaces are going to be "gun free zones".

 

18 minutes ago, samiam said:

 

 

[Lostboy 105]

1 hour ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Not my job.....  they should have armed themselves....  

 

Good answer and I suppose you're right, but I still think you'd have a hard time watching someone drop a bunch of people when you could have at least tried to stop it. 

[Lucky Lefty 112]

1 minute ago, Lostboy said:

I didn't use the word vigilante. I used the word vigilant. As in, be vigilant of your surroundings. Which is exactly how it was used. I also didn't say you have a duty to do anything. I said in my opinion you have a moral obligation to neutralize a threat especially if it's in your immediate vacinity. I should have worded that better. If you can sleep at night knowing you could have saved some lives and didn't that's wonderful. All of this really doesn't matter anyway because most public spaces are going to be "gun free zones".

 

 

Which is why I did not quote you. 

My post was in response to what you said, but moreso directed at the stance I have commonly seen in the past few weeks across social media of people almost itching at the chance to use their gun in an active shooter scenario.

This is new territory for 99% of us, and everyone is excited/anxious/etc...

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

And I'll sleep fine at night knowing my family made it out alive and escaped a horrific situation. I'd have trouble living with myself if my actions allowed them to get hurt in anyway. Their safety is my #1, #2, #3 and #4 concern. 

 

 

[EngineerJet 191]

I'm not saying anyone has a duty to protect anyone else. I can only speak to my own ideals. It is established that police have no duty to protect. As a society, when our bonds to each other are strong, then the social fabric is strong. That is why the cliche is smaller towns are more likely to help their fellow man then big dense cities.

I am not telling anyone what they should do in the circumstance of an active shooter and no cops are around. What I know is if my family is at a mall and I'm not there, I damn sure hope a good guy with a gun makes an attempt to save my family if they are in direct danger. Anyone in the same situation would presumably want the same. Is there the possibility they hit the wrong person? Sure. But who here, would actually choose the alternative of "Id rather my family die than risk a good guy with a gun hitting them by accident"?

Maybe its the Marine in me talking, but if I'm the only one around that can help. I don't know if I can walk away. I wouldn't judge anyone for choosing differently (unless it is literally their job... looking at you Uvalde)

[Lostboy 105]

16 minutes ago, Lucky Lefty said:

Which is why I did not quote you. 

My post was in response to what you said, but moreso directed at the stance I have commonly seen in the past few weeks across social media of people almost itching at the chance to use their gun in an active shooter scenario.

This is new territory for 99% of us, and everyone is excited/anxious/etc...

Wasn't trying to put words in your mouth.

And I'll sleep fine at night knowing my family made it out alive and escaped a horrific situation. I'd have trouble living with myself if my actions allowed them to get hurt in anyway. Their safety is my #1, #2, #3 and #4 concern. 

 

 

I completely agree. 

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

12 hours ago, Lostboy said:

Good answer and I suppose you're right, but I still think you'd have a hard time watching someone drop a bunch of people when you could have at least tried to stop it. 

These are all GOOD thought provoking comments.  That everyone needs to think about and rehearse as well as the myriad other scenarios.

Example..your in a restaurant with your family...your armed...someone comes in to stick up the joint....it's your turn to hand over your wallet....  what do you do?

 

 

 

The correct answer is hand over your wallet....

[Lucky Lefty 112]

Heard back from US LawShield.

The clarification I received is that section d. allows discretion of the courts to create limitations as they see fit, and as so 15 out of 21 counties are choosing to limit your permit to the specific gun you can carry. That is a court order and if your permit lists specific firearms or you received a separate order stating you can only carry guns you have qualified, and you choose to carry a gun not listed, you are now breaking a court order and committing a felony. 

[Lostboy 105]

3 hours ago, Lucky Lefty said:

Heard back from US LawShield.

The clarification I received is that section d. allows discretion of the courts to create limitations as they see fit, and as so 15 out of 21 counties are choosing to limit your permit to the specific gun you can carry. That is a court order and if your permit lists specific firearms or you received a separate order stating you can only carry guns you have qualified, and you choose to carry a gun not listed, you are now breaking a court order and committing a felony. 

Sounds like this needs to be challenged. Did they give any insight to that?

[Lucky Lefty 112]

22 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

Sounds like this needs to be challenged. Did they give any insight to that?

They said the laws will have to change, which they are working on and will take time. Other than that it may take someone with a carry permit to carry something not listed on their permit and then begin the legal battle if they find themselves in trouble for doing so, but they are not aware of anyone willing to volunteer to be that first person. So until someone is facing legal trouble for this scenario and wins, or the laws are rewritten, their best legal advice would be to carry as instructed by the court who approved your permit or face being charged with a felony.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

22 minutes ago, Lucky Lefty said:

They said the laws will have to change, which they are working on and will take time. Other than that it may take someone with a carry permit to carry something not listed on their permit and then begin the legal battle if they find themselves in trouble for doing so, but they are not aware of anyone willing to volunteer to be that first person. So until someone is facing legal trouble for this scenario and wins, or the laws are rewritten, their best legal advice would be to carry as instructed by the court who approved your permit or face being charged with a felony.

What's the statute number that says that you can only carry the specific handgun that you qualified with?

It's hard to be charged under a statute that does not exist.

While you're looking for it, try to find the statute that gives the judge the power to restrict your permit to a specific handgun.

Hint: we're applying for a PCH, not an RPO permit.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[Lucky Lefty 112]

5 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

What's the statute number that says that you can only carry the specific handgun that you qualified with?

It's hard to be charged under a statute that does not exist.

While you're looking for it, try to find the statute that gives the judge the power to restrict your permit to a specific handgun.

Hint: we're applying for a PCH, not an RPO permit.

2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns

d. Issuance by Superior Court; fee. If the application has been approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent, as the case may be, the applicant shall forthwith present it to the Superior Court of the county in which the applicant resides, or to the Superior Court in any county where he intends to carry a handgun, in the case of a nonresident or employee of an armored car company. The court shall issue the permit to the applicant if, but only if, it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun in accordance with the provisions of subsection c. of this section. The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes the handguns may be carried. At the time of issuance, the applicant shall pay to the county clerk of the county where the permit was issued a permit fee of $20.

 

In their words (USLS), section d. Of the statue (pasted above) is just as strong as section a. Of the same statute.

section d. is allowing the court to set limitations at their discretion.

If a judge limits your permit to specific guns, that is a court order and not abiding by that court order is a felony.

[Mr.Stu 1,916]

4 minutes ago, Lucky Lefty said:

If a judge limits your permit to specific guns, that is a court order and not abiding by that court order is a felony.

A specific handgun is not a type of handgun. Type is synonymous with category. It is not synonymous with specific.

[Lucky Lefty 112]

1 minute ago, Mr.Stu said:

A specific handgun is not a type of handgun. Type is synonymous with category. It is not synonymous with specific.

I am interested in seeing how this goes when challenged.

Please let us know when your legal battle begins.

[Lostboy 105]

14 minutes ago, Lucky Lefty said:

2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns

d. Issuance by Superior Court; fee. If the application has been approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent, as the case may be, the applicant shall forthwith present it to the Superior Court of the county in which the applicant resides, or to the Superior Court in any county where he intends to carry a handgun, in the case of a nonresident or employee of an armored car company. The court shall issue the permit to the applicant if, but only if, it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun in accordance with the provisions of subsection c. of this section. The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes the handguns may be carried. At the time of issuance, the applicant shall pay to the county clerk of the county where the permit was issued a permit fee of $20.

 

In their words (USLS), section d. Of the statue (pasted above) is just as strong as section a. Of the same statute.

section d. is allowing the court to set limitations at their discretion.

If a judge limits your permit to specific guns, that is a court order and not abiding by that court order is a felony.

This only applies to men. From now on I identify as an adult female. 

[Lucky Lefty 112]

2 minutes ago, Lostboy said:

This only applies to men. From now on I identify as an adult female. 

If only liberals weren't afraid of guns.. there would be daily riots in Trenton over that pronoun usage

[GRIZ 3,369]

16 hours ago, Lucky Lefty said:

Heard back from US LawShield.

The clarification I received is that section d. allows discretion of the courts to create limitations as they see fit, and as so 15 out of 21 counties are choosing to limit your permit to the specific gun you can carry. That is a court order and if your permit lists specific firearms or you received a separate order stating you can only carry guns you have qualified, and you choose to carry a gun not listed, you are now breaking a court order and committing a felony. 

I don't know about it being a felony.

Most contempt of court charges are treated as misdemeanors.  If all were a felony then not paying child support would be a felony.

2C:29-9 defines the penalties for contempt of court.  It seems only violations of restraining orders are treated as 4th degree crimes (a felony). Most contempt of court charges are treated as disorderly person offenses.

HOWEVER, if you're limited to those guns you qualified with that could be a disqualifying misdemeanor if you carry something else.

 

[SJ Guns 36]

Delete

Edited August 24, 2022 by SJ Guns
posted in wrong forum - deleted

[Lucky Lefty 112]

6 hours ago, GRIZ said:

I don't know about it being a felony.

Most contempt of court charges are treated as misdemeanors.  If all were a felony then not paying child support would be a felony.

2C:29-9 defines the penalties for contempt of court.  It seems only violations of restraining orders are treated as 4th degree crimes (a felony). Most contempt of court charges are treated as disorderly person offenses.

HOWEVER, if you're limited to those guns you qualified with that could be a disqualifying misdemeanor if you carry something else.

 

Just relaying what the lawyer told me.

My assumption was that because it involves a firearm, it is a felony.

Perhaps from the angle that you are illegally carrying a firearm being that it is not one that you qualified with, and not an "approved" firearm listed on your permit?

[ESB 244]

If you and your wife own handguns, can you use each other's?

[CMJeepster 2,777]

1 minute ago, ESB said:

If you and your wife own handguns, can you use each other's?

Interesting question.  IANAL, but my angle would be no since the P2P would have only one name on it.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

***DELETED***

[Lucky Lefty 112]

2 hours ago, samiam said:

According to the way the statute, AC and regs currently appear to be interpreted, no. I own a Ruger 4.2" SP101 (SA & DA) in .357 Magnum, my wife owns the DA-only 2-1/4" version of the same gun. She is not currently going for her permit, although that is subject to change. In many circumstances, her gun would be an easier carry, and it is clearly the same "type" of handgun, but I'm not going to risk it. I also like my front sight better, Ruger seems to only make the fiber optic (Tricon?) glowing bead available on the 4.2" barrel version.  

Sp101 dao? Concealed hammer version I assume.

I have the same gun, 2.25" barrel, but with an exposed hammer so it's SA/DA.

Such a fun gun to shoot

[SJ Guns 36]

4 hours ago, samiam said:

According to the way the statute, AC and regs currently appear to be interpreted, no. I own a Ruger 4.2" SP101 (SA & DA) in .357 Magnum, my wife owns the DA-only 2-1/4" version of the same gun. She is not currently going for her permit, although that is subject to change. In many circumstances, her gun would be an easier carry, and it is clearly the same "type" of handgun, but I'm not going to risk it. I also like my front sight better, Ruger seems to only make the fiber optic (Tricon?) glowing bead available on the 4.2" barrel version.  

2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns
a.    Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by section 2C:39-5e. One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit.

The line "owned by the holder thereof" sounds like carrying our spouses guns won't float.