njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted January 29, 2016 Session 2016-2017Bill A120:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A120Bill A136:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A136Bill A144:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A144Bill A350:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A350Bill A699:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A699Bill A800:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A800Bill A890:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A890Bill A1017:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1017Bill A1068:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1068Bill A1233:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1233Bill A1298:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1298Bill A1331:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1331Bill A1342:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1342Bill A1399:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1399Bill A1514:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1514Bill A1597:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1597Bill A1738:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A1738Bill A2074:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A2074Bill ACR96:1/27/2016 Introduced And Referred To Assembly Law and Public Safety Committeehttp://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=ACR96 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,134 Posted January 29, 2016 took a quick look, some good, bad and typical party sponsering. We've prob seen all/most of this before. will read more tmro so i can sleep tonite. Tip- hit html and scroll to bottem for summery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
intercooler 41 Posted January 29, 2016 a2074 looks like a good idea actually Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SmartAss 11 Posted January 29, 2016 a2074 looks like a good idea actually They can barely write a coherent sentence on their website's firearm faq. I'm sure a brochure won't be any better. http://www.njsp.org/firearms/firearms-faqs.shtml Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted January 30, 2016 It would be nice if one of our legislators, one with a modicum of actual common sense, would introduce a bill removing the M1 carbine from the banned list. This historic collectible carbine has become a political prisoner and needs to be set free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fumanchu182 23 Posted January 30, 2016 the tl;dr A120 Requires access to law enforcement guidelines for processing firearms permit applications upon public records request. - Yes please... A136 Repeals certain restrictions on future retail sales of handguns. - Yes please... A144 Permits certain special law enforcement officers to carry firearms at all times when in State. - No thanks... A350 Disqualifies person named on federal Terrorist Watchlist from obtaining firearms identification card or permit to purchase handgun. Law and Public Safety - How do people get off the list if placed there incorrectly? A699 Clarifies that BB guns are not firearms under New Jersey law. - Yes please... A800 Revises qualifications for handgun permit, establishes crimes for certain handgun use; establishes annual fee of $100. - More fees, go fuck yourself, hope the sponsor of this bill gets run over by a garbage truck. A890 Strengthens State's assault weapons ban. - Hope the above garbage truck visits them too. A1017 Reduces lawful maximum capacity of certain ammunition magazines in New Jersey. - Can we reduce the maximum capacity of words these assholes are allowed to use??? A1068 Increases statute of limitations for prosecution of theft of firearm. - Seems reasonable. A1233 Revises procedures for securing a permit to carry a handgun. - Awesome legislation. A1298 Increases criminal penalties if leaving loaded firearm within easy access of minor results in injury or death. - Seems reasonable. A1331 Establishes fourth degree crime of possessing firearms locator application; enhances penalty if such application is used in theft of firearm. - Da fuq, why would anyone do this? A1342 Prohibits possession of ammunition capable of penetrating body armor. - Do the garbage truck people get paid OT? A1399 Criminalizes purchase or possession of firearms ammunition by persons convicted of certain crimes. - If convicted of Jay Walking you can't buy bullets anymore, get the fuck out of here... A1514 Adds conviction of unlawfully possessing weapon to list of crimes that statutorily prohibits someone from buying or owning firearm. - Note to self our legislators are fucking morons. By definition criminals won't give a shit about this law... A1597 Allows courts to issue restraining orders prohibiting persons charged with firearms and gang related offenses from entering premises, locations, or areas where the offense occurred. - Good, the DMV lines are too damn long as it is. A1738 Revises statutes concerning firearms purchaser identification cards and handgun purchase permits; makes handgun purchase permit valid for four years. - Seems like an attempt to bring the permitting process into the digital age, I have to re-scan this bill to see about grandfather clauses, no fucking way everyone should have to be vetted again for a fee... A2074 Requires State Police to produce brochure summarizing law governing transport and possession of firearms; requires MVC to make brochure available to new State residents registering vehicles. - Does the bill sponsor Raj realize that he himself may be on a terrorist watch list... I keed, I keed... ACR96 Urges President and Congress of United States to enact assault weapons ban including prohibition against large capacity ammunition feeding devices. - Maine wants to bring back the guillotine, I think we should test it on these four fuck heads. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted January 30, 2016 A1331 is about a new app "Gun Geo Marker" where anyone can flag a location as being gun "unsafe". So your neighbor can mark you house as an unsafe gun location and everyone accessing the app can see it. Kind of like that list the paper published of CCW owners in NY. So your private possessions are now public knowledge to all. Good bill IMHO. We need to start a similar app for where the liberals keep their prized possessions, like money, jewelery, art, etc. After all if we are going to give the criminals intel, may as well point them in the right directions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fumanchu182 23 Posted January 30, 2016 A1331 is about a new app "Gun Geo Marker" where anyone can flag a location as being gun "unsafe". So your neighbor can mark you house as an unsafe gun location and everyone accessing the app can see it. Kind of like that list the paper published of CCW owners in NY. So your private possessions are now public knowledge to all. Good bill IMHO. We need to start a similar app for where the liberals keep their prized possessions, like money, jewelery, art, etc. After all if we are going to give the criminals intel, may as well point them in the right directions. I'm actually working on an Android app for marking gun free zones so people can avoid them. I'm fighting with google maps right now to use their API... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted February 1, 2016 Some good ones and some bad ones there. Some redundant or not necessary. 5 round limit for pistols but 7 round limit for rifles? F.U.! Confused about this: One bill indicates $100 yearly permit renewal fee. With yearly qualifying. Again FU. They other bills ties the renewal into your driver's license every 4 years. So which is it? If the DL, CCW, P2P are combined into renewal very 4 years, I may live with that. But not for $100 a year. Again, if the $100 covers CCW and unlimited purchases, I may consider it. A fee for a Constitutional right is illegal though. I would love to see how or when the DMV records would tie into the State Police records on a DL. Fumanchu182, I pretty much agree with what you said. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted February 1, 2016 A890 essentially bans nearly all semi-auto rifles in NJ, similar to the NY State SAFE Act:A890 VAINIERI HUTTLE, MUKHERJI 1 STATEMENT 2 3 This bill would strengthen the State’s current assault weapons 4 ban by revising the definition of an assault weapon to include: 5 rifles with detachable magazines and one military style feature; 6 semi-automatic shotguns with one military style feature; and semi- 7 automatic pistols with one military style feature. 8 The current definition of an assault weapon sets forth a list of 9 prohibited firearms and specifically includes any firearm that is 10 “substantially identical” to any of the enumerated firearms. Under 11 State regulations, a semi-automatic firearm is to be considered 12 substantially identical to an enumerated firearm if it meets certain 13 criteria. This bill codifies these regulations while expanding the 14 number of firearms that would be considered assault weapons by 15 adding criteria and reducing the number of criteria that must be met 16 from two to one. For example, under current regulations, a semi- 17 automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine 18 and has at least two listed criteria would be considered an assault 19 weapon. These criteria include: a folding telescoping stock, a 20 pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the 21 weapon; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to 22 accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher. Under 23 the bill, additional criteria are added including a thumbhole stock 24 and a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the 25 non-trigger hand. The bill also requires that only one criteria be 26 met, rather than the currently required two. 27 This bill also would reduce the maximum capacity of a legal 28 ammunition magazine in this State to seven rounds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 1, 2016 Fumanchu182, I pretty much agree with what you said. +1, but use a Cat D9 dozer instead of a garbage truck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted February 4, 2016 A144 Permits certain special law enforcement officers to carry firearms at all times when in State. - No thanks... They have to go the academy and often carry on duty. What's the beef here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
usnmars 136 Posted February 4, 2016 US VS THEM! They can but we can't. How many non LEO went through small arms firing school when they served in the military, I know I did. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 4, 2016 If they are not working why a need for firearm? Oh, that's right, self protection..... Laws are for all people, not certain people! I'm not a cop basher, but these constant exceptions create a caste system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 4, 2016 US VS THEM! They can but we can't. How many non LEO went through small arms firing school when they served in the military, I know I did. http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/03/armed-marine-veteran-saves-texas-deputy-struggling-suspect Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 4, 2016 http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/03/armed-marine-veteran-saves-texas-deputy-struggling-suspectGood people helping good people. Can you feel the love ,people? I'm feeling it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted February 4, 2016 Good people helping good people. Can you feel the love ,people? I'm feeling it.Not valid in NJ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,129 Posted February 4, 2016 The picture above looks like the result of a genetic experiment gone wrong. Someone tried to crossbreed a Shar-Pei with a kvetchy Bubby. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Buns of Guns 7 Posted February 4, 2016 I'm concerned about A1738. What implications does this have with private sales? Also, what happens to current non-residents FID holders? I'm not thrilled about my driver's license and FID/PPP getting merged. Also, on page 10, what's this BS about a safety class? Electronic reporting of rifle and shotgun + ammo transfers to state police? Internet ammo sales require FID? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted February 5, 2016 A890 essentially bans nearly all semi-auto rifles in NJ, similar to the NY State SAFE Act: A890 VAINIERI HUTTLE, MUKHERJI 1 STATEMENT 2 3 This bill would strengthen the State’s current assault weapons 4 ban by revising the definition of an assault weapon to include: 5 rifles with detachable magazines and one military style feature; 6 semi-automatic shotguns with one military style feature; and semi- 7 automatic pistols with one military style feature. 8 The current definition of an assault weapon sets forth a list of 9 prohibited firearms and specifically includes any firearm that is 10 “substantially identical” to any of the enumerated firearms. Under 11 State regulations, a semi-automatic firearm is to be considered 12 substantially identical to an enumerated firearm if it meets certain 13 criteria. This bill codifies these regulations while expanding the 14 number of firearms that would be considered assault weapons by 15 adding criteria and reducing the number of criteria that must be met 16 from two to one. For example, under current regulations, a semi- 17 automatic rifle that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine 18 and has at least two listed criteria would be considered an assault 19 weapon. These criteria include: a folding telescoping stock, a 20 pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the 21 weapon; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to 22 accommodate a flash suppressor; and a grenade launcher. Under 23 the bill, additional criteria are added including a thumbhole stock 24 and a second handgrip or a protruding grip that can be held by the 25 non-trigger hand. The bill also requires that only one criteria be 26 met, rather than the currently required two. 27 This bill also would reduce the maximum capacity of a legal 28 ammunition magazine in this State to seven rounds. 4th Circuit just ruled against Maryland Assault Weapons ban which is not nearly as restrictive. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fumanchu182 23 Posted February 5, 2016 They have to go the academy and often carry on duty. What's the beef here? Sorry for the late reply on this. The law should apply universally or not at all. Police should not be given special privileges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Silence Dogood 468 Posted February 5, 2016 4th Circuit just ruled against Maryland Assault Weapons ban which is not nearly as restrictive. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk For those interested - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/04/kolbe-v-hogan-4th-circuit-requires-strict-scrutiny-for-maryland-ban-on-magazines-and-semiautomatics/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry for the late reply on this. The law should apply universally or not at all. Police should not be given special privileges.Police definetly should not get special privileges. As it is they are trying to look more and more paramilitary everyday with their black unmarked or barely marked cars. In SHTF scenario the police worry me more than the military. IMO Military can and most will disobey unconstitutional order, however many cops have no problem violating constitutional rights. I want to be just as well armed as they are. Plus what makes their lives more important than civilians or veterans. Weapons qualification is a joke in most departments in NJ and many only shoot when they have to qualify. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted February 5, 2016 Sorry for the late reply on this. The law should apply universally or not at all. Police should not be given special privileges.Right, duh! I didn't have my thinking cap on when I commented. This allows more people to carry, but still bolsters the second class citizenry. Fun fact: I thought about being a Special once but completely walked because of this exclusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,555 Posted February 5, 2016 I would like to purpose Bill A 2468- TERM LIMITS FOR POLITICIANS AND NO BENEFITS . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted February 5, 2016 I would like to purpose Bill A 2468- TERM LIMITS FOR POLITICIANS AND NO BENEFITS . I got your back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted February 11, 2016 4th Circuit just ruled against Maryland Assault Weapons ban which is not nearly as restrictive. Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk I hate the rkba news outlets. They didn't rule against it. They remanded for t back down for the way they came to their ruling. It's a step in the right direction, but it's far from done, and far from saying what everyone claims it is saying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
capt14k 2,051 Posted February 11, 2016 I hate the rkba news outlets. They didn't rule against it. They remanded for t back down for the way they came to their ruling. It's a step in the right direction, but it's far from done, and far from saying what everyone claims it is saying.The ruling says that strict scrutiny must be used to decide if the law is unconstitutional as it pertains to the second amendment. The same level of scrutiny that applies to the first amendment. Which means the law fails Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrSurfboard 1 Posted February 12, 2016 People complain a lot about Christie, but once he's gone and a likely Democrat is in Trenton, the total assault weapons ban and magazine restrictions will likely become law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted February 13, 2016 The ruling says that strict scrutiny must be used to decide if the law is unconstitutional as it pertains to the second amendment. The same level of scrutiny that applies to the first amendment. Which means the law fails Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk No it doesn't. It means the judicial reasoning was rejected, not the conclusion it came to. Declaring anything more than that before we see what the lower court does is wishful thinking. I concur with you what the net result SHOULD be, but this could simply be a result of a court having a problem with other courts following the guidelines of a dissenting SCOTUS ruling rather than the majority ruling. It doesn't mean they won't accept some very tortured reasoning that claims to jibe with the majority ruling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites