-
Supporting Vendors
-
Latest Topics
-
-
Similar Content
-
By SMOKIE901
Can anyone who has a FLORIDA Non-Resident Concealed Carry Permit explain the details on how it is done to obtain? -
By ChrisJM981
Watch for progress on the Rogers & ANJRPC CCW case vs NJ AG, et al.
This was listed in another thread, but I thought it will need it's own space to avoid hijacking Rosey's CNJFO thread.
https://certpool.com/dockets/18-824?fbclid=IwAR2GBSTRnMnR15m914PMdkd7IYl3vrwjPPAXmw-Mt2Pgz1todMU5Gcc17cY
What are your thoughts? I think we're going to Washington!
-
By stuckinNJ
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/us-house-of-representatives-to-vote-on-hr-38-the-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-next-week
please take 60 seconds to call your reps, BOTH Republicans and Dems, urging their support. It seriously takes seconds.
No excuses
-
By fslater
Hi Everyone
I just Read the article in the Political report in Shooting Illustrated about The July ruling By the US Court Of Appeals that found DC's "good reason" to be granted a CCW unconstitutional. Wouldn't the conflicting rulings between the DC Federal Court and the Jersey District Federal court force the SCOUS to a hearing to resolve the conflict? This is old news from back in July I'm just hearing about now. If its already been discussed please direct me to the thread.
Thanks
-
By CJ Broz
Can anyone help me find the stats on how many people in NJ apply for CCLs, and how many of those applications get rejected?
I'm having an online argument on a military forum (I'm a retired Marine). Some guy thinks concealed-carry-restrictive states such as New Jersey and California are not violating the 2nd Amendment since they have a process for getting a permit, my response is it is a de facto ban if the vast majority of permit applicants are denied, but it's hard to make that argument without stats to back it up.
-
-
Posts
-
You’re right. It’s totally the pedestrians fault for being pedestrians on a pedestrian-only road. They definitely should have moved to the gravel so that the illegally-driven ATV could safely illegally drive. The reason there was no time to stop is because of the speed of the illegally driven ATV. The legally walking pedestrians were in less danger with the mass of the car in between them and the illegally driven ATV. Sure, he could have set up further back but then the pedestrians would not have been behind him. Hard to protect pedestrians from the ATV when they’re both in front of you. And how do you know his emergency lights were off?
-
By diamondd817 · Posted
It's physically a 2 lane road where there was plenty of room to avoid the pedestrians. Including the "parent and child" that were literally on the roads edge. The camera is a fisheye, and the ATV was much closer than it looked coming around the curve and there was no time to stop. The cop caused the crash and injury while further endangering pedestrians. This could have been handled differently, without injury. E.g. He could have set up further back and turned his lights and sirens on and gave the ATV time to stop. Again, illegally riding an ATV is a fineable offense, that's it. Does not justify lethal force by auto. I hope he sues and wins. -
By Cheflife15 · Posted
It's not really a road. It's supposed to just be open to pedestrian traffic. "Farnum Drive has been open to just pedestrian traffic since 2020. A large number of people, including families with children, were in the area." Voy beat me to it. -
Thanks for this. It wasn’t clear from the video that it is a pedestrian path. It looked like a dual use back road. It wasn’t a street. It is a paved pedestrian path. There is no expectation by those using it of any vehicles. What would a cop be expected to do if a dirt bike was careening down a busy sidewalk in the city? Second, the police car had stopped. Any force in this equation LITERALLY came from the ATV.
-
-