Why not propose an NJ RKBA Amendment?

[Kaiser7 33]

Haha, actually this reminds me of a comedic sketch idea I had parodying the duty to retreat. Basically a couple go to bed, talking about how scared they are about the cannibal serial killer who just escaped. Needless to say, he breaks in, and gets shot. The couple calls the cops, and the cops are distraught they would defend themselves. I was thinking of this idea the other day, thought it would be a funny stab at people who don't believe in self defense.

 

And hell, why would I bother calling the cops if they didn't have guns? That's the only reason you call cops in the first place, since they have the guns to defend themselves.

[Justjules 0]

I assume everyone who wishes to carry a concealed weapon is 100% familiar with self defense laws, if not here is a crash course. Just to clarify I am a gun supporter and a right to bear arms supporter, I just have an opinion that certain individuals should not have access to fire arms, fire arms need to be tracked by the state, people can commit crimes after owning a fire arm such is the case in Domestic Violence cases where the state needs to seize the weapons..I believe we should have the right to bear arms, but with certain restrictions and am cool with the current laws the way they are, and until I retire and move I will abide by them gladly.

 

 

The United States Constitution and our State laws permit us to protect ourselves. As a homeowner, there are legal measures that can be used to keep out intruders. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution provides that we have the right to bear arms. Obviously, civilized society is permitted to have certain restrictions on gun and weapon use.

The basic question many people have is if they defend themselves and the attacker claims they are hurt, can you be liable. There are two vastly different grounds for liability: criminal liability and civil liability.

Self-Defense and Avoiding Criminal Responsibility

A person may use force against another person if he reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person. Such justifiable use of force is commonly call "self-defense." The provisions for self-defense to protect citizens from criminal charges is found in the criminal code at NJSA 2C-3-4(a), which states in part:

"... The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion."

In other words, self defense is the right of a person to defend against any unlawful force. Self defense is also the right of a person to defend against seriously threatened unlawful force that is actually pending or reasonably anticipated.

When a person is in imminent danger of bodily harm, the person has the right to use force or even deadly force when that force is necessary to prevent the use against (him/her) of unlawful force. The force used by the defender must not be significantly greater that and must be proportionate to the unlawful force threatened or used against the defender.

Unlawful force is defined as force used against a person without the persons consent in such a way that the action would be a civil wrong or a criminal offense.

If the force used by the defender was not immediately necessary for the defenders protection or if the force used by the defender was disproportionate in its intensity, then the use of such force by the defendant was not justified and the self defense claim in a criminal prosecution falls.

Deadly Force and Criminal Prosecution

The use of deadly force may be justified only to defend against force or the threat of force of nearly equally severity and is not justifiable unless the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect (himself/herself) against death or serious bodily harm. By serious bodily harm, we mean an injury that creates substantial risk of death or which causes serious permanent disfigurement or which causes a protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.

One cannot respond with deadly force to a threat of or even an actual minor attack. For example, a slap or an imminent threat of being pushed in a crowd would not ordinarily justify the use of deadly force to defend against such unlawful conduct.

In addition, one can under limited instances use force in the protection of others (NJSA 2C:35-5). Limited force under certain instances is also afforded in the criminal code for the defense of personal property (NJSA 2C:3-6C).

Defense of Real Property (Your Home) and Criminal Liability

A section of our criminal law provides that:

"the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises."

A person commits a criminal trespass if, knowing that (he/she) is not licensed or privileged to do so, (he/she) enters or surreptitiously remains in any structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.

Our criminal law further provides that, in defense of your home:

"the use of force is justifiable...only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that (a) such request would be useless; (b) it would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request or © substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made."

"The use of deadly force is not justifiable in the defense of premises unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

© Deadly force does not become justifiable under subsections (a) and (b) unless

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of serious bodily harm."

These are taken from portions of the Model Jury Charges - Criminal, Third Edition, published by the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education. It should be noted that these are defenses to criminal charges which will be brought against you if you defended yourself.

Even if the County Prosecutor or Police decide not to bring criminal charges against you or if you are successful in proving that you were protecting yourself as permitted under certain provisions of the criminal code, the attacker if injured still may attempt to bring a civil suit to recover for any medical expenses or injuries incurred.

Defenses to Civil Liability

Ordinarily, if someone is injured as a result of the intentional or negligent act of another, they can recover monetary damages to reimburse them for medical bills and injuries suffered. However, this is not always so when the person was injured while attacking someone else or attempting to steal from that person.

The judge in a civil case will instruct jurors in the following easy to read language: "No person has a lawful right to lay hostile and menacing hands on another. However, the law does not require anyone to submit meekly to the unlawful infliction of violence upon him. He may resist the use or threatened use of force upon him. He may meet force with force, but he may use only such force as reasonably appears to him to be necessary under all the circumstances for the purpose of self protection.

One is not ordinarily expected to exercise the same refined degree of judgment at times of great stress or excitement that he would under more placid circumstances.

Deadly Force and Civil Duty to Retreat

A deadly force is not justifiable when an opportunity to retreat with complete safety is known by the defender to be at hand. The use of such force is not justifiable if the defender knew that it could have been avoided with complete safety to himself by retreating. Where these conditions are present, the defender has a duty to retreat, and his use of a deadly force under these circumstances cannot be justified as an act of self defense.

Defense of Others

One may justifiably intervene in defense of any person who is in actual or apparent imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and in so doing he may use such force as he has reason to believe, and does believe, necessary under the circumstances. The defender must be reasonable in his belief that the third party is in dire peril of death or serious bodily harm. He must also have a reasonable basis to believe that the force he uses is necessary to protect the apparent victim from the threatened harm.

The defender has the burden of proving to the jurors that he inflicted the injuries complained of while acting in defense of the third party within the foregoing principles.

One is not permitted to set up traps to kill or maim individuals who attempt to trespass on their property. There is a responsibility to warn trespassers of dangerous conditions and an intenant risk of injuries. You cannot have a deep pit to catch trespassers or electric wire with one million volts of electricity to kill a trespasser.

 

 

Liability for Dog Bites

If someone hops your fence, trespasses on your land, and your dog bites him, you are not liable. However, New Jersey does impose strict liability if your dog bites someone if it is loose or if the person bitten was in a public place or permitted on your property. NJSA 4:19-16 provides,

"The owner of any dog which shall bite a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owners knowledge of such viciousness.

"For the purpose of this section, a person is lawfully upon the private property of such owner when he is on the property in the performance of any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or the laws or postal regulations of the United States, or when he is on such property upon the invitation, express or implied, of the owner thereof."

Thus, in New Jersey, a dog does not get two bites.

A person can even be liable if your dog injures someone although not biting it. Being jumped on or chased by a dog could be grounds for a civil liability. It is also strict liability if any of your dangerous animals injure someone, i.e. pet, buffalo or tiger.

Conclusion

Self defense has been recognized in both the criminal code and civil liability cases. It is common sense under the circumstances that usually controls liability. For more detailed information on self defense, you should carefully read the New Jersey statutes dealing with criminal responsibility and self defense.

It is also important to note that in intentional acts usually your insurance company will not defend you or pay another person who is injured on your property as a result of intentional acts. You should personally speak with your homeowners insurance broker to ask them to show you specifically in your policy where you are covered for injuries to someone.

 

Self Defense statute 2002: 2C:3-1. Justification an affirmative defense; civil remedies unaffected a. In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this chapter, justification is an affirmative defense.

b. The fact that conduct is justifiable under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-1, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

2C:3-2. Necessity and other justifications in general a. Necessity. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity to the extent permitted by law and as to which neither the code nor other statutory law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved and a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

b. Other justifications in general. Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of any defense of justification provided by law for which neither the code nor other statutory law defining the offense provides exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved and a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed does not otherwise plainly appear.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-2, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

2C:3-3. Execution of public duty a. Except as provided in subsection b. of this section, conduct is justifiable when it is required or authorized by:

(1) The law defining the duties or functions of a public officer or the assistance to be rendered to such officer in the performance of his duties;

(2) The law governing the execution of legal process;

(3) The judgment or order of a competent court or tribunal;

(4) The law governing the armed services or the lawful conduct of war; or

(5) Any other provision of law imposing a public duty.

b. The other sections of this chapter apply to:

(1) The use of force upon or toward the person of another for any of the purposes dealt with in such sections; and

(2) The use of deadly force for any purpose, unless the use of such force is otherwise expressly authorized by law.

c. The justification afforded by subsection a. of this section applies:

(1) When the actor reasonably believes his conduct to be required or authorized by the judgment or direction of a competent court or tribunal or in the lawful execution of legal process, notwithstanding lack of jurisdiction of the court or defect in the legal process; and

(2) When the actor reasonably believes his conduct to be required or authorized to assist a public officer in the performance of his duties, notwithstanding that the officer exceeded his legal authority.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-3, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

b.Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force.

(1)The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

(a)To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or

(b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

(i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest;

(ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or

(iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm.

(2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if:

(a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

(ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed.

(3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

(2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and:

(a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or

(b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so.

(3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

Amended 1987, c.120, s.1; 1999, c.73.

2C:3-5. Use of force for the protection of other persons a. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:

(1) The actor would be justified under section 2C:3-4 in using such force to protect himself against the injury he believes to be threatened to the person whom he seeks to protect; and

(2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and

(3) The actor reasonably believes that his intervention is necessary for the protection of such other person.

b. Notwithstanding subsection a. of this section:

(1) When the actor would be obliged under section 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b) to retreat or take other action he is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless he knows that he can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person, and

(2) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b) to retreat or take similar action if he knew that he could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause him to do so before using force in his protection if the actor knows that he can obtain complete safety in that way; and

(3) Neither the actor nor the person whom he seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the others dwelling to any greater extent than in his own.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-5, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property. a. Use of force in defense of premises. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises.

b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises.

(1) Request to desist. The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) Such request would be useless;

(b) It would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or

© Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made.

(2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily harm.

(3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

(b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that

© Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that:

(i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or

(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with personal property in his possession or in the possession of another for whose protection he acts.

d. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of personal property.

(1) Request to desist and exclusion of trespasser. The limitations of subsection b. (1) and (2) of this section apply to subsection c. of this section.

(2) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in defense of personal property is not justified unless justified under another provision of this chapter.

Amended by L. 1987, c. 120, s. 2. 2C:3-8. Use of force by persons with special responsibility for care, discipline or safety of others The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable as permitted by law or as would be a defense in a civil action based thereon where the actor has been vested or entrusted with special responsibility for the care, supervision, discipline or safety of another or of others and the force is used for the purpose of and, subject to section 2C:3-9(b), to the extent necessary to further that responsibility, unless:

a. The code or the law defining the offense deals with the specific situation involved; or

b. A legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed otherwise plainly appears; or

c. Deadly force is used, in which case such force must be otherwise justifiable under the provisions of this chapter.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-8, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

2C:3-9. Mistake of law as to unlawfulness of force or legality of arrest; reckless or negligent use of excessive but otherwise justifiable force; reckless or negligent injury or risk of injury to innocent persons a. The justification afforded by sections 2C:3-4 to 2C:3-7 is unavailable when:

(1) The actors belief in the unlawfulness of the force or conduct against which he employs protective force or his belief in the lawfulness of an arrest which he endeavors to effect by force is erroneous; and

(2) His error is due to ignorance or mistake as to the provisions of the code, any other provisions of the criminal law or the law governing the legality of an arrest or search.

b. (Deleted by amendment; P.L.1981, c. 290.)

c. When the actor is justified under sections 2C:3-3 to 2C:3-8 in using force upon or toward the person of another but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those sections is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence towards innocent persons.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-9, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1981, c. 290, s. 6, eff. Sept. 24, 1981.

2C:3-10. Justification in property crimes Conduct involving the appropriation, seizure or destruction of, damage to, intrusion on, or interference with, property is justifiable under circumstances which would establish a defense of privilege in a civil action based thereon, unless:

a. The code or the law defining the offense deals with the specific situation involved; or

b. A legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed otherwise plainly appears.

L.1978, c. 95, s. 2C:3-10, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

2C:3-11. Definitions Definitions. In this chapter, unless a different meaning plainly is required: a. "Unlawful force" means force, including confinement, which is employed without the consent of the person against whom it is directed and the employment of which constitutes an offense or actionable tort or would constitute such offense or tort except for a defense (such as the absence of intent, negligence, or mental capacity; duress, youth, or diplomatic status) not amounting to a privilege to use the force. Assent constitutes consent, within the meaning of this section, whether or not it otherwise is legally effective, except assent to the infliction of death or serious bodily harm.

b. "Deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing or which he knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Purposely firing a firearm in the direction of another person or at a vehicle, building or structure in which another person is believed to be constitutes deadly force. A threat to cause death or serious bodily harm, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actors purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.

c. "Dwelling" means any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being the actors home or place of lodging except that, as used in 2C:3-7, the building or structure need not be the actors own home or place of lodging.

d. "Serious bodily harm" means bodily harm which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or which results from aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault.

e. "Bodily harm" means physical pain, or temporary disfigurement, or impairment of physical condition.

Amended by L. 1979, c. 178, s. 11; 1981, c. 290, s. 7; 1987, c. 120, s. 3.

[gunnyr 17]

So elitist attitude aside, justjules brings up a good point. We need a solid castle doctrine as well. But I think a constitutional amendment is a good start.

 

BTW justjules how many firefights have you been in? I was in two my first week in Ramadi. I lost count after the first two months. I bet there are a sh*t ton of vets on this forum that have even more experience than me since I only did one deployment. I'm just curious to know if you personally had to put your training to use.

 

I'm sure you're cool with the way the laws work for the rest of us because you're one of the select few with the "burden" of being allowed to carry. I know you couldn't see it but I really rolled my eyes reading that in your post. Good grief.

[deadeye74 5]

If you have read any previous posts on this forum, you ave seen that no one expects any one "win" for us pro 2a types to solve all the problems.

 

One thing leads to another in our situation. Win and get a real 2A in the NJ constitution and slowly everything will start to change. It's been said here before that we need a real Castle doctrine, right to carry, overhaul of the permit system, overhaul of gun regulations.

 

I posted earlier in this thread questioning what happens if we loose. I asked because if we did get a slot on the ballot and lost, my fear is that the defeat will be used against us in future legal challenges. If we can get on the ballot, rock on! Then we all have a duty to inform those who don't follow this forum, NJ2AS, etc why they should embrace a 2A in NJ and not vote against it.

[Justjules 0]

So elitist attitude aside, justjules brings up a good point. We need a solid castle doctrine as well. But I think a constitutional amendment is a good start.

 

BTW justjules how many firefights have you been in? I was in two my first week in Ramadi. I lost count after the first two months. I bet there are a sh*t ton of vets on this forum that have even more experience than me since I only did one deployment. I'm just curious to know if you personally had to put your training to use.

 

I'm sure you're cool with the way the laws work for the rest of us because you're one of the select few with the "burden" of being allowed to carry. I know you couldn't see it but I really rolled my eyes reading that in your post. Good grief.

 

In my 38 year on this earth I have been in Zero gun fights, thank god. And BTW my right or as I like to call it my "burden" to carry a fire arms that your so jealous of for some reason (how many times have you been shot at in NJ?) is not all that you think it is. Keep in mind all that legal trash I posted previously, is hanging over your head every time you strap a gun on your side and leave your home. Also keep in mind your expected to know it and analyze and dissect all of that in a fraction of a second under extreme duress in a deadly force encounter. And trust me there is no shortage of people looking to point their fingers and find something you did wrong if you ever have to use deadly force, so the grass is not always greener..

 

As far as me being an elitist, you are incorrect. I am just a realist.

[mcbethr 42]

I posted earlier in this thread questioning what happens if we loose. I asked because if we did get a slot on the ballot and lost, my fear is that the defeat will be used against us in future legal challenges.

 

If... If I had a crystal ball, I would be a wealthy man...

 

Depends on how bad we lose. If we lose by a 3 to 1 margin, it will be proof that the people of the state prefer the laws just the way they are. And honestly, it could pave the way for new restrictions because it is obvious that the people want it.

 

If we lose by a slimmer margin, we'll get vilified in the papers but that's probably about it. There will be plenty of "I told you so's..." but that's about it.

 

But I can't go on "what if we lose." Right now, doing nothing is sure to give us no results any time soon, and waiting for the Supreme Court could take years.

 

We can't rely on the federal government. We have to rely on us.

[Kaiser7 33]

In my 38 year on this earth I have been in Zero gun fights, thank god. And BTW my right or as I like to call it my "burden" to carry a fire arms that your so jealous of for some reason (how many times have you been shot at in NJ?) is not all that you think it is. Keep in mind all that legal trash I posted previously, is hanging over your head every time you strap a gun on your side and leave your home. Also keep in mind your expected to know it and analyze and dissect all of that in a fraction of a second under extreme duress in a deadly force encounter. And trust me there is no shortage of people looking to point their fingers and find something you did wrong if you ever have to use deadly force, so the grass is not always greener..

 

As far as me being an elitist, you are incorrect. I am just a realist.

 

My house was shot at before. If you feel so strongly that it is a burden, then why don't you just sell off your guns, and refuse to carry on the job? Not sure if you're allowed or not, but it would likely save you a lot of trouble it seems.

 

Personally, I believe the current system is too restrictive on police who need to use force, and that is something I'd like to see amended, perhaps, in the future.

[Justjules 0]

My house was shot at before. If you feel so strongly that it is a burden, then why don't you just sell off your guns, and refuse to carry on the job? Not sure if you're allowed or not, but it would likely save you a lot of trouble it seems.

 

Personally, I believe the current system is too restrictive on police who need to use force, and that is something I'd like to see amended, perhaps, in the future.

Once again, I SUPPORT GUN OWNERSHIP!!! for the selective readers..However it is my opinion that not every person who is over 21 should automatically be entitled to own one....And a concealed carry law in NJ would not solve the worlds problems...Once again, my opinion, no agenda...Just like it is my opinion that certain people should not be allowed to keep reproducing, but we put no restriction on that.

[deadeye74 5]

 

If... If I had a crystal ball, I would be a wealthy man...

 

Depends on how bad we lose. If we lose by a 3 to 1 margin, it will be proof that the people of the state prefer the laws just the way they are. And honestly, it could pave the way for new restrictions because it is obvious that the people want it.

 

If we lose by a slimmer margin, we'll get vilified in the papers but that's probably about it. There will be plenty of "I told you so's..." but that's about it.

 

But I can't go on "what if we lose." Right now, doing nothing is sure to give us no results any time soon, and waiting for the Supreme Court could take years.

 

We can't rely on the federal government. We have to rely on us.

 

I agree we need to do something. Given that this is a presidential election year, perhaps it may be better to wait until 2013 to get on the ballot. Some people only go out to vote for presidential elections, and considering NJ's strong democratic party history and BO's anti gun stance, we could be facing a higher number of anti's on election day than usual.

[Justjules 0]

Surprisingly enough, I would support whatever bill you propose cause it would mean i could get bigger and better guns =-)

[Soju 153]

Same reason you can carry in PA but not in the major metro areas like Philly. Ask the politicians why they came up with that one..

 

Well don't you sound stupid now. Carrying is legal in Philly. I, and many others on this forum, can and do carry in Philly all the time.

 

 

I am trained and have the "LIABILITY" on my shoulders of carrying a fire arm in NJ.Trust me, it is over rated and you dont want it..The average citizen will not be willing to go to any extensive training to carry a fire arm in NJ...

 

I suppose nobody on this forum is an average citizen then, because many of us have stated many times that we would be willing to go through training to be able to carry here. Many of us already have gone through extensive training. Many people have taken course to get carry permits from other states. But you are right, only special people like yourself that wear a badge should get that privilege.

Buddy, I have been in the game to know 1 thing. once you give the Govt any power, you will never get them to release it. Simply deal with the right that NJ recognizes in regards to Firearms, or move to a state that has more relaxed or no restrictions. But you will not fight the State and win, and not one politician in this liberal pussified state will even acknowledge your requests..But if you feel like wasting time, have at it tiger..Ill be in PA in a few years with an arsenal of weapons..

 

Tyranny alert. We have found one of their minions. Do as the government says and you will be okay, but don't dare stand up for yourself against anything that may be unjust! But don't fear! Justjules is here! Please bow down to his mighty authority.

 

 

Your way off base pal. Trust me when I say this. Carrying a fire arm is more of a liability than it is worth.

 

Im done with this thread, you guys are thick headed, good luck with your quest.

 

Yep, because nobody here ever has or ever does carry a firearm. We all have no idea! And we are the ones thick headed? You are hilarious!

 

So much for being 'done with this thread', huh?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Kind of wish we still had the rating system, I think Radek wold have a run for his money right about now.. ROFLMAO

[johnp 45]

Kind of wish we still had the rating system, I think Radek wold have a run for his money right about now.. ROFLMAO

 

I was thinking the exact same thing, haha.

[usnmars 136]

Fellas lets keep this back on topic, we dont need to be bashing one another. The thread isn't really about CCW, it is about the RKBA amendment in this state. Although we may not agree with what eachother say, we dont need to be hammering on eachother. Justjules is LEO and has a different perspective than many of us, he is someone that actually deals with the BS every day. I for one respect his opinion, although I dont agree 100% with it. Lets stick together and stay on topic, lets not turn this into a cop bashing thread. There is a lot of good content on this forum, and lets keep it that way. Lets not keep picking at eachother.

[mcbethr 42]

Ok, I've done the math, although I'm not going to publish it just yet until I put a presentation together and the people at NJ2AS decide what to do.

 

Basically, if we assume that all Republicans will vote Yes and all Democrats who voted yes for Pension reform will vote yes, we are 2 votes short in the Senate and 1 vote short in the Assembly.

 

This assumes that Senator Fred "OGAM" Madden will vote yes and Senator Brian Stack will vote No regardless.

 

So we'll see. I have to do a power point presentation with the strategy, but we are very, very close.

[njpilot 671]

..However it is my opinion that not every person who is over 21 should automatically be entitled to own one....

 

Every person who is over the age of 21 is not "automatically entitled" to own a firearm. They have to meet certain criteria, such as pass a criminal background check and a mental health check.

 

You spout how much you know the laws, then you posted this more than once. Just because someone is 21 they don't automatically get a firearm.

 

You also keep stating you're all for gun registration. You do know that happened years ago in other countries, right. Then when a new government came in they used those lists to disarm the people and then murder them when they chose too. Good plan.

[matty 810]

Go for it, you just got a preview of what the Law Enforcement Industry (Police,prosecutors,judges,lawyers) will throw at you. They don't want changes to the status quo of course. Just shut up, we know what's best for you. Just like the "War on Drugs", Transportation "Security Administration", gun buy backs, endless & repetitive urban "Task forces", unannounced checkpoints for 'your Safety", citizen! If nothing else it will at least wake them up that there is a t least a few people that aren't buying their lies anymore.

 

Ok, I've done the math, although I'm not going to publish it just yet until I put a presentation together and the people at NJ2AS decide what to do.

 

Basically, if we assume that all Republicans will vote Yes and all Democrats who voted yes for Pension reform will vote yes, we are 2 votes short in the Senate and 1 vote short in the Assembly.

 

This assumes that Senator Fred "OGAM" Madden will vote yes and Senator Brian Stack will vote No regardless.

 

So we'll see. I have to do a power point presentation with the strategy, but we are very, very close.

[Justjules 0]

Every person who is over the age of 21 is not "automatically entitled" to own a firearm. They have to meet certain criteria, such as pass a criminal background check and a mental health check.

 

You spout how much you know the laws, then you posted this more than once. Just because someone is 21 they don't automatically get a firearm.

 

 

 

I know that, I meant if there was more relaxed or no gun restrictions like in other states since the whole topic was complaining about NJ gun legislation. I agree some of the NJ gun laws are silly, and mostly prevent or make it difficult for people to lawfully obtain weapons. But the bottom line is, if you live in NJ you have 2 options.

1-deal with it and do what the laws says because IMHO we wont change a thing in this state.

2-move to a more gun friendly state

 

Think about this, we live in the most pussified state in the country, where we are coddled from womb to grave, heck you cant even say the word gun in school let alone play army like we used to as kids..

 

I think Im unsubscribing from this thread so I wont be tempted to keep debating the issue..

[woodentoe 14]

You need to be 21 to own a handgun in every state. You must pass a background check at point of sale. You cannot buy a handgun out of state without going through a local ffl. What on earth are the laws in Nj that make us safer from the evil guns and the criminals?

[Justjules 0]

What on earth are the laws in Nj that make us safer from the evil guns and the criminals?

Mandatory prison sentences, that do almost nothing...The County I work it, I see gang members pleading out a murder charge to a simple weapons charge and doing a few years of jail time for a homicide. Pathetic huh?

 

My thing is what makes a handgun so special where you need a permit for each one and it has to be registered with the state, but you can buy as many high powered rifles and shotguns as you want with no registration..What makes a handgun any more dangerous than a shotgun, hell give me a shotgun over a hand gun any day...

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I know that, I meant if there was more relaxed or no gun restrictions like in other states since the whole topic was complaining about NJ gun legislation. I agree some of the NJ gun laws are silly, and mostly prevent or make it difficult for people to lawfully obtain weapons. But the bottom line is, if you live in NJ you have 2 options.

1-deal with it and do what the laws says because IMHO we wont change a thing in this state.

2-move to a more gun friendly state

 

Think about this, we live in the most pussified state in the country, where we are coddled from womb to grave, heck you cant even say the word gun in school let alone play army like we used to as kids..

 

I think Im unsubscribing from this thread so I wont be tempted to keep debating the issue..

 

99% of the gun laws in this state only do 1 thing, they restrict the law abiding citizens and that's it. I doubt there is one legal gun owner in the State or any for that matter that want to make it easier for criminals and prohibited persons to obtain firearms. Actually I'd probably think and while I don't want to speak for the group being I am only 1 voice, but I think the penalties for crimes with guns should be more severe. Problem is commons sense laws do absolutely nothing to stop criminals from having guns, nothing at all. I highly doubt any criminals or let call the would be criminals have gone down to their local PD and went to apply for an FID and some P2P's and were denied and said, oh well, I get I can go make a living robbing people and places..

 

As far as your comments about free states, well statistics do show, look up the FBI statistics on it, but CCW, and less restrictive gun laws lower crime rates. As far as NJ never changing things, well with attitudes like this and to go back to one of your comment you made, SHEEP think like that and by god, this country was not founded with that type of though process. Can changes happen, YES, will they happen overnight, NO, but nothing gets done unless people put effort into it. I sure know I would like to do more, but I do what I can, but ask yourself, other than telling people nothing will ever change and telling people if they don't like it, just move out of the state, WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO CHANGE THINGS. Or are you still in the mindset that only LEO's should have guns??

 

Now when I say stronger punishment for crimes with guns, no I am not talking people who may stop for a bite to eat when they have a handgun with them going to and from the range, not talking about correct capacity mags, not talking about a folding or pistol grip or flash hider, or the biggie, that insane bayo lug,ooohhhhh thats a bad one...

It's for people who commit actual crimes that would hurt or do hurt someone.

 

As far as 21 and get a gun, well it's 18 for long guns, 21 for hand guns, and that also doesn't mean a person under 21 can't own a handgun as you know, but as long as you are not a person who is prohibited you should not be restricted in owning period. As I said before, training should be optional, a responsible gun owner or especially one who wishes to CCW would take it upon themselves to get training, however I can not support any mandatory training being it's a right and not a privilege. Thats the problem, too many people think gun ownership is a privilege, it's not, it's a RIGHT.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Registration should not be needed, P2P's should not be needed, as a matter of fact an FID should not be needed, what should be done and the only thing done is at point of sale is a NICS check.

 

And before you say, things will be out of control if that were to happen, well I'd just point you to many states in the Free America that this works just fine.

[PeteF 1,044]

but I think the penalties for crimes with guns should be more severe.

 

I feel the penalties don't have to be more severe, just implemented. Ala you get a 10 year sentence you serve 10 years, not out in 6 months like most of the repeat offenders you read about in the news.

 

 

As far as 21 and get a gun, well it's 18 for long guns, 21 for hand guns, and that also doesn't mean a person under 21 can't own a handgun as you know, but as long as you are not a person who is prohibited you should not be restricted in owning period.

 

I agree. Why is it that any 17 year old, can go legally possess and operate a weapon the is thousands of time more deadly than a gun just by passing a simple written test. (Drivers License)

 

 

As I said before, training should be optional, a responsible gun owner or especially one who wishes to CCW would take it upon themselves to get training, however I can not support any mandatory training being it's a right and not a privilege. Thats the problem, too many people think gun ownership is a privilege, it's not, it's a RIGHT.

 

Again I agree 100%

[Justjules 0]

Look Ill sign whatever petition there was to allow less restrictive gun laws for lawful gun ownership, but I just think your wasting your time,but Ill still sign it. The fact fo the matter is the politicians have made the non gun owners of this state "FEEL" as if their safer by proposing legislation and passing laws restricting certain types of weapons from sale or ownership. Its all smoke and mirrors, cause the reality it is, a law abiding citizen can still purchase an assault style weapon that is capable of picking someone off at 100-200-300 yards, but the general non gun owning public dont understand that. All they see is "senator so and so" lobbied for the ban on "assault weapons" in NJ and they vote for him saying oh he really cares about our safety..It really is a pathetic shell game of semantics in Trenton.

 

Is the average person any safer cause you or I cant have a bayonette lug on our gun? No...

Are they any safer cause we cant have a flash suppressor or 30 round mags? No...No...

But the politicians have them believing they are safer as a result of his or her actions.

 

Too many votes to be lost come election time for someone to change the rules. I bet in NJ there are more non-gun owning voters than there is gun owning voters. The only way to sneak looser gun legislation past is to put it in fine print of a bill that increases welfare benefits =-)

 

Here is another hypothetical though, a lawful gun owner all of a sudden commits a crime that puts him on the prohibited persons list, what now? what do you do? Take his weapons? How do you know if you have them all since long guns have no registration? Just food for thought cause these are the things politicians and their big $$$$$ lawyers will ask.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Here is another hypothetical though, a lawful gun owner all of a sudden commits a crime that puts him on the prohibited persons list, what now? what do you do? Take his weapons? How do you know if you have them all since long guns have no registration? Just food for thought cause these are the things politicians and their big $$$$$ lawyers will ask.

 

Define the crime that have committed? was it stopping for a coffee at DD's drive through on the way home from the range or did they go out and rob a store at gunpoint?

 

Way to broad a question without more to it, it would have to be based on what crime they committed, after all there are a lot of stupid laws on the books..

 

Here are a few quick examples:

 

Number 5

It is against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season.

So put your two sticks down for one big one.

Number 4

It is against the law to "frown" at a police officer.

Get a ticket - Be Happy! Bobby McFerrin would be proud.

Number 3

Drivers must warn those who they pass on highways before they do so.

And

All motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.

New Jersey is really serious about this law. So, scare the crap out of someone and then pass them.

Number 2

You cannot pump your own gas.

Pumping gas - it's a party! Bring a friend.

Number 1

It is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder.

I guess New Jersey doesn't worry about the larger illegality of MURDER!

From Blairstown:

No street-side trees may be planted that "obscure the air".

Trees can produce clean air but don't obscure it!

[hd2000fxdl 422]

There was another one that contradicts the transportation of caring a handgun also.

 

I can't remember where it was and I can't fund it right now, but upon approaching an intersection you were to get out of your vehicle, look both ways, fire off a warning shot and then after checking again that the roadway was clear you could proceed. So if you do this, your in trouble, if you don't your in trouble depending on what law was to be enforced.

 

I also think this was a NJ law way back in time, but I may be mistaken on it being NJ, either way, this was not meant as an argument of law, but a joke and just pointing out there are a lot of obscure laws that do not fit in todays world that are still on the books.

 

By the way, in VA, you can have sex in your car, but don't do it while on lunch break, that not allowed, but during breakfast, and dinner and any other time your good to go.

[Justjules 0]

Define the crime that have committed? was it stopping for a coffee at DD's drive through on the way home from the range or did they go out and rob a store at gunpoint?

 

Way to broad a question without more to it, it would have to be based on what crime they committed, after all there are a lot of stupid laws on the books..

 

Here are a few quick examples:

 

Number 5

It is against the law for a man to knit during the fishing season.

So put your two sticks down for one big one.

Number 4

It is against the law to "frown" at a police officer.

Get a ticket - Be Happy! Bobby McFerrin would be proud.

Number 3

Drivers must warn those who they pass on highways before they do so.

And

All motorists must honk before passing another car, bicyclist, skater, and even a skateboarder.

New Jersey is really serious about this law. So, scare the crap out of someone and then pass them.

Number 2

You cannot pump your own gas.

Pumping gas - it's a party! Bring a friend.

Number 1

It is illegal to wear a bullet-proof vest while committing a murder.

I guess New Jersey doesn't worry about the larger illegality of MURDER!

From Blairstown:

No street-side trees may be planted that "obscure the air".

Trees can produce clean air but don't obscure it!

 

 

Do you even know the difference between a crime, and offense and a summons? Obviously not...Im actually done replying to you specifically,cause your clearly an antagonist who has a chip on his shoulder and an issue with cops.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Do you even know the difference between a crime, and offense and a summons? Obviously not...Im actually done replying to you specifically,cause your clearly an antagonist who has a chip on his shoulder and an issue with cops.

 

ROFLMAO,, really,, LOL Now that's funny...

 

Dude you seem to be the one who has a chip on their shoulder and if that other post in the other thread is yours I'll say you seem to have problems with people on other forums. Now if that is the case, maybe you should look in the mirror and see who the problem person really is. Maybe if you really sit back take a look at what you write and how you write it (Remember people can only see the written word, body language and facial expressions) don't come through on a forum.

 

Still LMAO...

[BlueLineFish 615]

I can verify that Harry does in no way have a chip on his shoulder. I for one can attest to how dialogue can be misconstrued due to lack of personal interaction when one is just reading a typed statement. I have been in jules' position and accused of the same stuff. Now most people who have met me dont seem to think of me that way. At least i think they dont.

[Midwest 28]

According to this, New Jersey had a Constitutional Convention in 1947 and did NOT include in the right to keep and bear arms. Is this the basis for all the problems?

 

http://conservativen...d-in-new-jersey

 

 

" Delegates to the 1947 New Jersey Constitutional Convention believed that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was so obvious and universally accepted that they did not include it the wording in our state Constitution - a presumptive error of epic proportions.

 

Proceedings of the State of New Jersey Constitutional Convention

 

Wednesday, August 13, 1947

 

MR. STANGER: Senator, do you consider that the anti-discrimination clause as to civil rights will cover this provision as to militia, the thought being that civil rights include military rights?

 

MR. VAN ALSTYNE: Judge Stanger, that point was raised in committee and I can tell you that the committee unanimously felt - there are a number of lawyers on our committee - that the right to bear arms was a civil right. That is very definitely one of the rights of citizens. We therefore did fully cover the situation. (N.J. Constitutional Convention: Vol. 1, Page 305)"

 

 

(There was another Constitutional Convention again before the 1966 FID Laws went in effect)--a coincidence? Or no bearing?