NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[Carolina Native 22]

7 minutes ago, antimatter said:

I believe you are correct with most of what you have pointed out; however the only thing I would add is some corporations do have blanket policies on firearms like Costco which I just discovered -  (https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/709/~/are-guns-%26-personal-firearms-allowed-in-costco-warehouses%3F) 

its just another thing we all need to be aware of!

Funny you mention the boardwalk; there are signs for no loitering, no pot, no dogs and no disrobing - but nothing about firearms (seaside that is). 
 

 

 

I've never seen a sign up for NO Guns at Costco.  I'm not sure how valid the policy is without the necessary signage.  They are a membership club, so that could change things.

[xXxplosive 824]

Have seen a few in COSTCO with tight shirts and buldges at the hip.....pretty easy to spot, even If your not lookin.

[GrumpyOldRetiree 38]

1 hour ago, Grima Squeakersen said:

The page at that link is dated May 16, before the partial overturning of Bumb's injunction. Way out of date.

I guess you missed the prominent gray box that states:

Important Update – As of June 20, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued a partial stay which negates parts of Judge Bumb’s preliminary injunction issued on May 16, 2023. We provide the list of places you can carry below as a courtesy. It is not legal advice.

Court order from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

whelp....if i were gonna pay to shop somewhere...costco is off the list.

[Vdep217 63]

1 hour ago, antimatter said:

I believe you are correct with most of what you have pointed out; however the only thing I would add is some corporations do have blanket policies on firearms like Costco which I just discovered -  (https://customerservice.costco.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/709/~/are-guns-%26-personal-firearms-allowed-in-costco-warehouses%3F) 

its just another thing we all need to be aware of!

Funny you mention the boardwalk; there are signs for no loitering, no pot, no dogs and no disrobing - but nothing about firearms (seaside that is). 
 

 

 

If there is no sign at the entrance it's not enforceable

[antimatter 139]

21 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

whelp....if i were gonna pay to shop somewhere...costco is off the list.

agreed;  apparently its in the agreement when you sign up.  

BJ's is good to go i think as i cant find anything on their site. 

[Fawkesguy 57]

I have a costco membership.  I'll continue to shop there, unless they decide to install metal detectors.  Otherwise,  I'll just keep my concealed firearm concealed.

 

[TuscanRaider 8]

2 hours ago, Fawkesguy said:

I have a costco membership.  I'll continue to shop there, unless they decide to install metal detectors.  Otherwise,  I'll just keep my concealed firearm concealed.

 

I just did the same thing. Got refunded $127 from Costco LOL. I’ll stick with Sams. It’s closer and it has alcohol

[CMJeepster 2,778]

3 hours ago, Fawkesguy said:

I have a costco membership.  I'll continue to shop there, unless they decide to install metal detectors.  Otherwise,  I'll just keep my concealed firearm concealed.

 

My closest one near the Quakerbridge Mall is a hot bed of violence in the parking lot.

[Tunaman 549]

On 7/1/2023 at 5:00 PM, xXxplosive said:

there's nothin' in the 2A that says anything about fees.........no, not everyone is happy to pay for our Constitutional Rights....the problem is we're so use to paying for everything fellas thinks this is the way it's done....need to look at the other 26 states that say it isn't.

nebraska now makes 27!

[Walkinguf61 40]

4 hours ago, Vdep217 said:

If there is no sign at the entrance it's not enforceable

And is it truly enforceable? The TRO is on the whole part 24. NJ doesn’t have a previous “sign “ law for a gun charge that I know of. Worse case appears to me is a trespass if one doesn’t leave when asked . 

[Xtors 333]

59 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

My closest one near the Quakerbridge Mall is a hot bed of violence in the parking lot.

Really? I've been there a couple times over the years but never got the sense that I should avoid it.

7 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

And is it truly enforceable? The TRO is on the whole part 24. NJ doesn’t have a previous “sign “ law for a gun charge that I know of. Worse case appears to me is a trespass if one doesn’t leave when asked . 

This is the impression I was left with after my USLS call today.

[Walkinguf61 40]

13 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Really? I've been there a couple times over the years but never got the sense that I should avoid it.

This is the impression I was left with after my USLS call today.

While the TRO is in effect, there is no enforceable sign law in NJ . It is consequence of their overreach. 

[Xtors 333]

14 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

While the TRO is in effect, there is no enforceable sign law in NJ . It is consequence of their overreach. 

Having trouble locating what you mean by TRO on whole part 24. Would you please provide some more information? I am very curious.

[Walkinguf61 40]

25 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Having trouble locating what you mean by TRO on whole part 24. Would you please provide some more information? I am very curious.

The part of the TRO that stood up was section 24

 

A4769] 7.  (New section) Places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited. 
a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be a crime of the third degree for any person, other than a person lawfully carrying a firearm within the authorized scope of an exemption set forth in N.J.S.2C:39-6 and only to the extent permitted by the entity responsible for security at the place in question, to knowingly carry a weapon, as defined in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1, in any of the following places, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area of: 
(24) private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued license under N.J.S.2C:58-4; 
 

Part 24 is not enforceable under the TRO. There is no prior signage law to fall back upon if this part of the law is negated that I know of. 

[Xtors 333]

27 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

The part of the TRO that stood up was section 24

 

A4769] 7.  (New section) Places where the carrying of a weapon is prohibited. 
a. Except as otherwise provided in this section, it shall be a crime of the third degree for any person, other than a person lawfully carrying a firearm within the authorized scope of an exemption set forth in N.J.S.2C:39-6 and only to the extent permitted by the entity responsible for security at the place in question, to knowingly carry a weapon, as defined in subsection r. of N.J.S.2C:39-1, in any of the following places, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area of: 
(24) private property, including but not limited to residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, institutional or undeveloped property, unless the owner has provided express consent or has posted a sign indicating that it is permissible to carry on the premises a concealed handgun with a valid and lawfully issued license under N.J.S.2C:58-4; 
 

Part 24 is not enforceable under the TRO. There is no prior signage law to fall back upon if this part of the law is negated that I know of. 

Thanks for that. I am guessing it falls under existing trespass law then. For example, does NJ law explicitly state businesses can post a "no shirt, no service" notice or are there some general guidelines that allow business to post non-discriminatory conditions of entrance that when disobeyed can get you trespassed?

[Walkinguf61 40]

13 minutes ago, Xtors said:

Thanks for that. I am guessing it falls under existing trespass law then. For example, does NJ law explicitly state businesses can post a "no shirt, no service" notice or are there some general guidelines that allow business to post non-discriminatory conditions of entrance that when disobeyed can get you trespassed?

I won’t cite NJ precedent on the “no shirt , no service “ because I don’t know it but I never heard of that being a straight up trespass charge on its own . They have to ask the person to leave first as a violation of their conditions but not if the actual law yet. 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

6 hours ago, antimatter said:

agreed;  apparently its in the agreement when you sign up.  

BJ's is good to go i think as i cant find anything on their site. 

my mom had a bj's membership....they were pretty decemt

[CMJeepster 2,778]

12 hours ago, Xtors said:

Really? I've been there a couple times over the years but never got the sense that I should avoid it.

I can't find an article, but one of our neighbors was brutally attacked in the parking lot within the past 3 years to the point of having major surgery and teeth knocked out, etc.  I also know through a Lawrence PD source that that's not the first time something like that has happened.  The store's camera system is worthless, BTW.  Daylight shopping only was advised to me.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

when i'm walking to/from my vehicle in any parking lot, my head's always on the swivel. ain't no one getting near me that i don't want gettin close to me......

[Xtors 333]

7 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

I can't find an article, but one of our neighbors was brutally attacked in the parking lot within the past 3 years to the point of having major surgery and teeth knocked out, etc.  I also know through a Lawrence PD source that that's not the first time something like that has happened.  The store's camera system is worthless, BTW.  Daylight shopping only was advised to me.

Wow. Good to know. Appreciate the info! I hope your neighbor is doing ok.

[Xtors 333]

18 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

I won’t cite NJ precedent on the “no shirt , no service “ because I don’t know it but I never heard of that being a straight up trespass charge on its own . They have to ask the person to leave first as a violation of their conditions but not if the actual law yet. 

Correct. If, after being asked to leave, you refuse, then you are looking at a trespass charge. What the lawyer said is that this same situation applies to carry in a place you didn't realize that you couldn't.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

On 7/10/2023 at 2:52 PM, GrumpyOldRetiree said:

I guess you missed the prominent gray box that states:

Important Update – As of June 20, 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has issued a partial stay which negates parts of Judge Bumb’s preliminary injunction issued on May 16, 2023. We provide the list of places you can carry below as a courtesy. It is not legal advice.

Court order from the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Didn't show up for me. Possibly a side-effect of the extremely locked-down default state of my browser (although it is unusual for page sections to entirely disappear...) Sorry!

[Fawkesguy 57]

"Interim" requirements/forms have been posted:

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Kl9N542raXHZSANWgcHyTX7r_Sl8m7VIIv4BuGpswLLbqAFdwgQq_EvOuREsaK8JKSTF-BftfcQmSPPIZbkVftnl1BQJHB5iKphYzvwNPrNAh4LAup2nIu_psEAVmHT4OC-p4DaUH5cDQ4FJgtmyHW_V2b_7bMQ2sr6rrNhDiWG3jTmWJTYqvEO7RxQZ7CD4emfjxtJhQQJsDMOg4t1JmA==&c=caJZhwep3B2prlHMzA28XY02-iROcOpG8w4A7-f52R7ixuNTXk_iuQ==&ch=vQwrHBFWAtcaqHAqX8_8QL35va2yV4FbcfSX1w5ohiCP7vwRoep9eA==

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/sp-182_PTC_Safe_Handling_and_Proficiency_Certification.pdf

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/sp-182a_PTC_Additional_Handguns_Intended_to_be_Carried.pdf

[CMJeepster 2,778]

10 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

"Interim" requirements/forms have been posted:

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

So, page 2 already has me curious about the citizen's arrest powers.  More to come as I read through this.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

13 minutes ago, Fawkesguy said:

"Interim" requirements/forms have been posted:

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/PTC_use_of_force_and_Qual.pdf

https://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001Kl9N542raXHZSANWgcHyTX7r_Sl8m7VIIv4BuGpswLLbqAFdwgQq_EvOuREsaK8JKSTF-BftfcQmSPPIZbkVftnl1BQJHB5iKphYzvwNPrNAh4LAup2nIu_psEAVmHT4OC-p4DaUH5cDQ4FJgtmyHW_V2b_7bMQ2sr6rrNhDiWG3jTmWJTYqvEO7RxQZ7CD4emfjxtJhQQJsDMOg4t1JmA==&c=caJZhwep3B2prlHMzA28XY02-iROcOpG8w4A7-f52R7ixuNTXk_iuQ==&ch=vQwrHBFWAtcaqHAqX8_8QL35va2yV4FbcfSX1w5ohiCP7vwRoep9eA==

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/sp-182_PTC_Safe_Handling_and_Proficiency_Certification.pdf

https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/sp-182a_PTC_Additional_Handguns_Intended_to_be_Carried.pdf

i just breezed this. that seems to be the course i shot. both times. wonder if i'm gonna still hafta do it again.....

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Page 5:

"III. Imminent Danger

In addition to a reasonable belief that the individual presents a threat, you must determine that there is an imminent need for the use of force.  Imminent danger are threatened actions or outcomes that are immediately likely to occur during an encounter absent action by the retired officer. The period of time involved is dependent on the circumstances and facts evident in each situation and is not the same in all situations. The threatened harm does not have to be instantaneous, for example, imminent danger may be present even if a subject is not at that instant pointing a weapon at the private citizen, but is carrying a weapon and running for cover to gain a tactical advantage.

IV. Force Options

The private citizen must be familiar with the basic force options that may be available to respond to the use of force against the private citizen, to protect life or property or to prevent the commission of a crime"

------

I guess nobody proofread this?  They didn't change the term, "the retired officer."  The also missed the period in IV.  

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Top of page 7;

"If a retired officer uses pepper spray or CED against a perpetrator, the retired officer should, where feasible, summon the immediate assistance of a uniformed officer or first aid squad to provide aftercare to the sprayed individual."

------

[Tunaman 549]

They dont proof read shit.  Looks like another 3-4 pages of bullshit forms added to the never ending bullshit package for the PTC. They think we are to be treated like a retired police officer.  When I get their pension then I will act the same.  Until then They can fuck off.  "Shall not be infringed'.!  I hope this shit gets shot down in court.  FPM!

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Page 10:

"A. A person is justified in using force upon or toward a third party if the person 
1. reasonably believes 
2. force is immediately necessary
3. to prevent the other person from
    a. committing suicide
    b. inflicting serious bodily harm upon him or herself, or
    c. committing or consummating the commission of a crime involving or threatening bodily harm, damage to or loss of property or a breach of the peace

B. Deadly force is only justified if the person using force  1. reasonably believes  2. it is likely that the person he or she seeks to prevent from committing a crime  3. will endanger human life or inflict serious bodily harm upon another unless  4. the commission or the consummation of the crime is prevented; and  5. the use of deadly force presents no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons "

------