NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[45Doll 5,877]

I think we need to enact Safe Lawmaking and Proficiency Qualification statutes requiring that anyone who wants to work in the New Jersey Legislature needs to pass several tests.

If they can't demonstrate an ability to write a law that makes sense, they can't run for office.

[High Exposure 5,664]

16 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

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 "

------

I don’t understand the facepalm for this one. Fairly standard use of force language.

14 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

So if I read this right, I am to use deadly force to stop a person from killing or hurting themselves? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE IDIOTS?

No. You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide.

Nowhere in the quoted text on section A is deadly force mentioned. Merely “force”. There are other types of force that one can use, not just deadly.

Physical presence, constructive authority, physical force, mechanical force, or enhanced mechanical force (all of which are considered a lower level of force and deadly) can be used to prevent suicide, if appropriate and applicable.

Nowhere in the quotes text of section B is suicide mentioned. It only refers to “harm upon another” - not self.

14 hours ago, Tunaman said:

Yes.  Its says to KILL THEM before they KILL THEMSELVES!

No it doesn’t.

12 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

Am I crazy or is that what it says?

That is not what it says.

10 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Any shot even if not fatal, is considered deadly force. When the police sniper literally shot a gun out of the hands of someone who wanted to kill themselves, it was still considered the use of deadly force . So if you were shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff, it’s still deadly force . 

Yes. Any firing of a firearm - even a miss or a “warning shot” (which are expressly forbidden) is considered deadly force. However, scenario you described has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted section of the UoF guideline from a practical standpoint.

An individual threatening suicide can become a deadly force threat if they threaten to harm another with serious bodily injury or death and are armed with a weapon, such as a firearm, that is capable of doing so. 

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

I don’t understand the facepalm for this one. Fairly standard use of force language.

No. You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide.

Nowhere in the quoted text on section A is deadly force mentioned. Merely “force”. There are other types of force that one can use, not just deadly.

Physical presence, constructive authority, physical force, mechanical force, or enhanced mechanical force (all of which are considered a lower level of force and deadly) can be used to prevent suicide, if appropriate and applicable.

Nowhere in the quotes text of section B is suicide mentioned. It only refers to “harm upon another” - not self.

No it doesn’t.

That is not what it says.

Yes. Any firing of a weapon - even a “warning shot” is considers deadly force. However, scenario you described has absolutely nothing to do with the quoted section of the UoF guideline from a practical standpoint.

An individual threatening suicide can become a deadly force threat if they threaten to harm another with serious bodily injury or death and are armed with  a weapon, such as a firearm, that is capable of doing so. 

I’m just explaining why deadly force can be used to prevent suicide 

[High Exposure 5,664]

7 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

I’m just explaining why deadly force can be used to prevent suicide 

But it can’t.

You can not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff.

You can tackle them, hold them, grab them, punch or kick them - if you think it will be successful - but you can’t shoot them, stab them, or run them over with your car.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

15 hours ago, bad64chevelle said:

So if I’m reading that correctly , if we have a permit within the last two years , we DONT need to go through all this bs until we have to renew ? 

Depends what "they" mean by "target training." 

14 hours ago, Tunaman said:

The way I read it is that if you have a permit that has been issued in the last 2 years and went through all the required steps you dont need classroom or training again for renewal.  Like not having to take the driving test again for renewing your drivers license.  Thats how I read it.

"They" will close that loophole once "they" realize what "they" did.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

14 hours ago, Tunaman said:

and what the hell is a .pptx document?   I dont have powerpoint and am not buying it just so i can comply. What idiot couldnt make it a .pdf so we can read it...

The same idiots that couldn't take a few minutes to find and correct the errors that I found in a simple 19 page document.

14 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

So if I read this right, I am to use deadly force to stop a person from killing or hurting themselves? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THESE IDIOTS?

"They" hate you and I and "they" don't want us to own or carry firearms.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

9 hours ago, High Exposure said:

I don’t understand the facepalm for this one. Fairly standard use of force language.

The formatting.  Look at the formatting.  I write technical documents as large part of my job, and have done so for 25+ years.  If I turned in a 19 page document as shitty as this, I'd be fired.  This is a governmental document that has an effect on the entire population of this state and those that are visitors.  This is beyond a poor effort.  It would be like having the following sign at all entry points to the state:

"Welcome to Nwe Joisy, Phildo Merphy, Givener"

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, High Exposure said:

But it can’t.

You can not shoot someone in the leg to prevent them from jumping off a cliff.

You can tackle them, hold them, grab them, punch or kick them - if you think it will be successful - but you can’t shoot them, stab them, or run them over with your car.

In reality, yes. By the law in NJ, no, unless they write it into the law. I’m just explaining how deadly force could stop a suicide attempt and why someone might write it into the law.

[High Exposure 5,664]

5 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

The formatting.  Look at the formatting.  I write technical documents as large part of my job, and have done so for 25+ years.  If I turned in a 19 page document as shitty as this, I'd be fired.  This is a governmental document that has an effect on the entire population of this state and those that are visitors.  This is beyond a poor effort.  It would be like having the following sign at all entry points to the state:

"Welcome to Nwe Joisy, Phildo Merphy, Givener"

Gotcha. I figured it was just an artifact of copy/paste from the document to the forum.

[High Exposure 5,664]

5 hours ago, Walkinguf61 said:

In reality, yes. By the law in NJ, no, unless they write it into the law. I’m just explaining how deadly force could stop a suicide attempt and why someone might write it into the law.

That doesn’t make sense, and frankly it isn’t helpful.

You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide. Full stop. There are no “but”s, “technically”s, or “actually”s. You simply can not do it.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

18 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Gotcha. I figured it was just an artifact of copy/paste from the document to the forum.

I'm an anal-retentive person by nature.  Reading that shit drove me up the wall.  I wanted to correct it and email it to Callahan.

[Walkinguf61 40]

28 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

That doesn’t make sense, and frankly it isn’t helpful.

You can not use deadly force to prevent suicide. Full stop. There are no “but”s, “technically”s, or “actually”s. You simply can not do it.

You have no idea what you are talking about . 
Here is one example 

 

[High Exposure 5,664]

5 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

You have no idea what you are talking about . 
Here is one example 

 

 

Bud, with all respect - you couldn’t be more wrong about what I know. And - I knew you were going to cherry pick this exact instance.

First - this incident in Ohio in 1993 has nothing to do with current NJ use of force laws. 

Second - That sniper had to have special permission from superior officers to take that shot.

Third - That was not just to stop a suicidal person. That was a standoff with an armed individual that was pointing a gun at other people as well as himself. He may have also been suicidal, but soon as he points the gun at others he becomes a threat to the public at large. The force employed by the sniper was authorized because it was justified to prevent the danger of serious bodily injury or death to the general public. That’s a completely different situation than a mere suicide.

And before you go there - “Suicide by cop” isn’t really suicide. It’s a bad guy threatening violence on others to invoke a known outcome. From the “defenders” point of view, the use of deadly force was to prevent serious injury or death to themself or another, not to stop a suicidal person from completing the act.

Just like stopping a “suicide bomber” - from a use of force standpoint, you are not using deadly force to stop someone from successfully completing suicide. You are preventing a deadly attack on the public.

[Walkinguf61 40]

38 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

 

Bud, with all respect - you couldn’t be more wrong about what I know. And - I knew you were going to cherry pick this exact instance.

First - this incident in Ohio in 1993 has nothing to do with current NJ use of force laws. 

Second - That sniper had to have special permission from superior officers to take that shot.

Third - That was not just to stop a suicidal person. That was a standoff with an armed individual that was pointing a gun at other people as well as himself. He may have also been suicidal, but soon as he points the gun at others he becomes a threat to the public at large. The force employed by the sniper was authorized because it was justified to prevent the danger of serious bodily injury or death to the general public. That’s a completely different situation than a mere suicide.

And before you go there - “Suicide by cop” isn’t really suicide. It’s a bad guy threatening violence on others to invoke a known outcome. From the “defenders” point of view, the use of deadly force was to prevent serious injury or death to themself or another, not to stop a suicidal person from completing the act.

Just like stopping a “suicide bomber” - from a use of force standpoint, you are not using deadly force to stop someone from successfully completing suicide. You are preventing a deadly attack on the public.

Again. My explanation has little to do with NJ law. I am simply explaining how deadly force can be used to stop a suicide , period. The poster questioned why would an exception such as use of deadly physical force to stop a suicide be put in a  law as of its an oxymoron to use such force. 
Remember that in some places a chokehold is now considered deadly physical force. Knocking someone out with bat to the head is considered in some places deadly physical force .

Deadly physical force can stop a suicide . That’s why it might be written into a law to stop a suicide.

[Scorpio64 5,156]

37 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

You have no idea what you are talking about . 

Dude, just give up this stupid quest of yours to be right.  You are obviously ignorant to the facts and making yourself look like a fool. 

Kinda wondering why you are stuck on this incredibly improbable scenario like Rain Man and rejecting the contributions to this thread made by an actual expert .  That was a rhetorical question, please do not feel compelled to answer it because it will not be responded to.

Just accept the fact that you are wrong and move on.  I think we are done here discussing your absurd claim that deadly force is appropriate to prevent suicide.  It was a ridiculous premise to begin with. 

Seriously, let it go and if you can't, then go hire Evan Nappan for a proper legal answer that will straighten you out.  That would be the prudent thing to do before you go out looking to prevent suicides with deadly force.

[Walkinguf61 40]

21 minutes ago, Scorpio64 said:

Dude, just give up this stupid quest of yours to be right.  You are obviously ignorant to the facts and making yourself look like a fool. 

Kinda wondering why you are stuck on this incredibly improbable scenario like Rain Man and rejecting the contributions to this thread made by an actual expert .  That was a rhetorical question, please do not feel compelled to answer it because it will not be responded to.

Just accept the fact that you are wrong and move on.  I think we are done here discussing your absurd claim that deadly force is appropriate to prevent suicide.  It was a ridiculous premise to begin with. 

Seriously, let it go and if you can't, then go hire Evan Nappan for a proper legal answer that will straighten you out.  That would be the prudent thing to do before you go out looking to prevent suicides with deadly force.

Again, I do know what I am talking about . If one takes a baseball bat and hits someone in the head — is that deadly force ? The answer is yes in most cases. 
That’s deadly force. 
If an exemption is written into the law, then it can stop a suicide .

And I have stopped many suicide attempts. 

[YankeeSC 1,204]

30 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

I am simply explaining how deadly force can be used to stop a suicide , period.

The example you gave has nothing to do with that, the shooters actions were to stop something else.

31 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Knocking someone out with bat to the head is considered in some places deadly physical force

I believe that would be considered deadly force in ALL places.

[High Exposure 5,664]

40 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Again, I do know what I am talking about . If one takes a baseball bat and hits someone in the head — is that deadly force ? The answer is yes in most cases. 
That’s deadly force. 

You’re right. That is deadly force.

If they live, it’s also aggravated assault. If they die, it’s murder. That’s probably universally in the US.

You’re out of your mind if you think that whacking someone in the head with a bat is an appropriate response to someone threatening suicide.

40 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

If an exemption is written into the law, then it can stop a suicide .

So what? If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. But she doesn’t, so she’s still my aunt (maybe not a great comparison for 2023, but you know what I mean).

There is no exemption. You are not permitted to use deadly force to prevent suicide.

40 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

And I have stopped many suicide attempts. 

I have stopped more than a few myself.

I am sorry you had to experience that.

It’s a lonely, terrible, and hopeless feeling staring at someone ready to jump, swing, stab, or shoot themselves and trying to talk them out of it. But never once have I had the thought - “I know, let’s shoot them!”

[Walkinguf61 40]

40 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

The example you gave has nothing to do with that, the shooters actions were to stop something else.

I believe that would be considered deadly force in ALL places.

I use some  places as opposed to all places but I should have used most places . 

[High Exposure 5,664]

1 hour ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Again. My explanation has little to do with NJ law. I am simply explaining how deadly force can be used to stop a suicide , period. The poster questioned why would an exception such as use of deadly physical force to stop a suicide be put in a  law as of its an oxymoron to use such force. 
Remember that in some places a chokehold is now considered deadly physical force. Knocking someone out with bat to the head is considered in some places deadly physical force .

Deadly physical force can stop a suicide . That’s why it might be written into a law to stop a suicide.

Jesus…

Deadly force can also stop littering, speeding, jaywalking and shoplifting. 

Doesn’t mean you are permitted to do it! 

[Cheflife15 455]

Lol we're so off course here. 

Ok, let's just not use deadly force to stop suicide. 

Back to the topic at hand.

Is anyone filing motions against this stuff? Have lawsuits been filed? Anyone peaceful protesting? Or are we just kinda screwed into submission?

[High Exposure 5,664]

You are right. Apologies.

I was just dumbfounded - and I don’t like seeing bad info that someone may follow, especially when it’s something this serious, not be corrected.

[Walkinguf61 40]

 

28 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

You’re right. That is deadly force.

If they live, it’s also aggravated assault. If they die, it’s murder. That’s probably universally in the US.

You’re out of your mind if you think that whacking someone in the head with a bat is an appropriate response to someone threatening suicide.

So what? If my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle. But she doesn’t, so she’s still my aunt (maybe not a great comparison for 2023, but you know what I mean).

There is no exemption. You are not permitted to use deadly force to prevent suicide.

I have stopped more than a few myself.

I am sorry you had to experience that.

It’s a lonely, terrible, and hopeless feeling staring at someone ready to jump, swing, stab, or shoot themselves and trying to talk them out of it. But never once have I had the thought - “I know, let’s shoot them!”

As I said , I was explaining why it was not an oxymoron to put such language in a law and how such force could be used.

As far as hitting someone with a bat in the head to stop suicidal actions— someone on dust who is cutting themselves might be a reason if you don’t have other tools. I started out before tasers were made available to us grunts at the time.

While I personally knew and worked with some guys who attempted suicide, my experience doesn’t compare to the emotional toll their loved ones experienced. It was my job . 

Agg assault . It depends on the jurisdiction and justification laws. Here. Agg assault is assault 2. Striking anyone with a weapon is an assault 2 or assault 1 but the CPL allows peace/police officers to use batons and other weapons in many circumstances. It’s the same in many jurisdictions that a justification is recognized. So might they write in the law such a justification .

37 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

Jesus…

Deadly force can also stop littering, speeding, jaywalking and shoplifting. 

Doesn’t mean you are permitted to do it! 

To stop a suicide ? It’s a big difference between that and littering . That’s like comparing a self defense shooting to littering too. 

[Walkinguf61 40]

34 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Lol we're so off course here. 

Ok, let's just not use deadly force to stop suicide. 

Back to the topic at hand.

Is anyone filing motions against this stuff? Have lawsuits been filed? Anyone peaceful protesting? Or are we just kinda screwed into submission?

Agreed. I was writing out my response before  I read your post 

[gleninjersey 2,141]

36 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

Lol we're so off course here. 

Ok, let's just not use deadly force to stop suicide. 

Back to the topic at hand.

Is anyone filing motions against this stuff? Have lawsuits been filed? Anyone peaceful protesting? Or are we just kinda screwed into submission?

For now, we are screwed and have to comply if we wish to carry.

Hopefully this is challenged sooner rather than later.  All the fees associated with the process should be enough to file a motion to stop this.  What other Constitutionally protected rights require citizens to spend several hundreds of dollars and many,many, MANY hours before that right can used?  None.  

The Bill Of Rights lays out actions THE GOVERNMENT is restricted from engaging in.  Citizens shouldn't have to pay the government extraordinary fees to NOT restrict their rights.  This is nothing short of extortion.  And, IMHO, it is simply more intentional obstacles put into place by our "leaders" to make the process as difficult as possible so people say "To hell with this!  It's not worth my time and money!".  

Imagine the uproar from the left if before people were allowed to vote they had to pass tests, invest hours and hours of time going here and there completing tasks, needed to have notarized letters from multiple people saying the voter was a good citizen and didn't have anything that would disallow them to vote AND pay hundreds of dollars before they could vote!  Every two years.  Cities would burn.

 

 

 

[xXxplosive 824]

Some of us have already complied depending on the Course you took and where it was taken......better check with your instructor or sometin'.........omo.

[Annie 0]

So essentially nothing has changed with regard to concealed carry? There's so many places you can't carry. Where can you carry concealed?

[1LtCAP 4,264]

5 minutes ago, Annie said:

So essentially nothing has changed with regard to concealed carry? There's so many places you can't carry. Where can you carry concealed?

while my travel circle is small, i have yet to go into a store that has signage saying i can't carry. nor have i had any friends neighbors or relatives ask me to disarm before entering their property......

[RadioGunner 218]

13 minutes ago, Annie said:

So essentially nothing has changed with regard to concealed carry? There's so many places you can't carry. Where can you carry concealed?

 

In your vehicle, and nearly everywhere I go on my daily routine, except for school property and the post office. 

[Annie 0]

Okay thanks. So if I get a cc permit I can go anywhere that doesn't specifically say (either verbally or on a sign) I can't go there with a firearm?