Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

[Darrenf 422]

9 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

Sorry if I'm off base, But, They should be..Someday it might be them. With more people moving south to warmer climates, like Florida and the Carolinas, might happen to them. Isn't Florida where most New Yorkers go, they might be first.

 

It's already happening in Virginia.  "Guessing" that free America doesn't care, and then having a defeatist attitude as a result, is a poison that will kill us all.  Don't let the media, or anyone deter you from fighting.  If you value the founding father's ideas, them man up (or even better, Mrs. Peel-up) and get out there and fight!  Let them know they are on the wrong side of history by oppressing minorities and those who are not connected by preventing them from having the same protection the elites enjoy. 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

50 minutes ago, NJGF said:

I am guessing the people in free America aren't as concerned as we are.

you're probably right. and for the most part due to that right there, they won't get this fired up over it....and a minority from an insignificant state aren't gonna win any of these douchenozzles over.

[Darrenf 422]

Just now, 1LtCAP said:

you're probably right. and for the most part due to that right there, they won't get this fired up over it....and a minority from an insignificant state aren't gonna win any of these douchenozzles over.

That attitude right there is exactly what I am talking about.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

8 minutes ago, Bklynracer said:

Sorry if I'm off base, But, They should be..Someday it might be them. With more people moving south to warmer climates, like Florida and the Carolinas, might happen to them. Isn't Florida where most New Yorkers go, they might be first.

 

1) you're not off base. you hit the nail on the head in fact.

2) it's not "if", but rather "when"

1 minute ago, Darrenf said:

That attitude right there is exactly what I am talking about.

i never said i'm not gonna fight. i just live with the reality of the fact we're not gonna win them over. not without help anyway. i always remain hopeful that i am proven wrong. in the near future.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

31 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

It's already happening in Virginia.  "Guessing" that free America doesn't care, and then having a defeatist attitude as a result, is a poison that will kill us all.  Don't let the media, or anyone deter you from fighting.  If you value the founding father's ideas, them man up (or even better, Mrs. Peel-up) and get out there and fight!  Let them know they are on the wrong side of history by oppressing minorities and those who are not connected by preventing them from having the same protection the elites enjoy. 

I didn't mean for my last message to sound defeatist... did it? I think this will continue to be a loooong fight. My conversation with Lance's office - thought initially disappointed - later had me thinking "he simply needs to be won over... or replaced." The fact is that there are slowing turning changes that ARE positive and do bode well for the future (and I'm talking largely about court appointments because I do believe, ultimately, these decisions will be made in the courts -- so the continuing appointments of young, pro-2A judges is to our benefit).

[Darrenf 422]

I didn't mean for my last message to sound defeatist... did it? I think this will continue to be a loooong fight. My conversation with Lance's office - thought initially disappointed - later had me thinking "he simply needs to be won over... or replaced." The fact is that there are slowing turning changes that ARE positive and do bode well for the future (and I'm talking largely about court appointments because I do believe, ultimately, these decisions will be made in the courts -- so the continuing appointments of young, pro-2A judges is to our benefit).

No, you did not sound defeatist at all. I mentioned you as another way of stating “man up”, because you are out there walking the walk.

[Zeke 5,504]

11 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I didn't mean for my last message to sound defeatist... did it? I think this will continue to be a loooong fight. My conversation with Lance's office - thought initially disappointed - later had me thinking "he simply needs to be won over... or replaced." The fact is that there are slowing turning changes that ARE positive and do bode well for the future (and I'm talking largely about court appointments because I do believe, ultimately, these decisions will be made in the courts -- so the continuing appointments of young, pro-2A judges is to our benefit).

Peel up is kinda a thing now. When they act like mangina’s they should Prolly Peel the F.... up!

im digging this @Darrenf

[capt14k 2,052]

There are at least 10 vulnerable Dem Senators from Red and Thus Free States that Trump won. So there is a slim chance that they break ranks and do a little self preservation and give us the 60 needed for cloture.

 

Then there is the option of forcing them to filibuster. They can't stop a vote if the rules of the Senate are followed. Each Senator gets 2 chances to speak. Once they stop their session is over. The Senate can continue to operate while this goes on. The filibuster record is Strom Thruman at 22hrs. No chance any of the current crop of Dems makes it past 8hrs. If all 48 speak twice for 8hrs they can only delay the vote for 32 days.

 

Finally if the Republicans don't have the balls to force the Dems to Filibuster and it doesn't pass this year in 2019 we will have a Filibuster Proof majority on paper; though it will include Collins, McCain, and Murkowski.

 

 

 

 

[USA123 5]

Lets say that this does pass... what current laws will change  in NJ?? Wouldn't this passing effect the gun ban list and magazine capacities? 

[Darrenf 422]

Lets say that this does pass... what current laws will change  in NJ?? Wouldn't this passing effect the gun ban list and magazine capacities? 

No one knows until the final version gets signed. The text can and almost definitely will change before it gets to Trump’s desk.

[capt14k 2,052]

Lets say that this does pass... what current laws will change  in NJ?? Wouldn't this passing effect the gun ban list and magazine capacities? 

The current version would in essence eliminate magazine restrictions; at least for handguns.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[1LtCAP 4,262]

32 minutes ago, USA123 said:

Lets say that this does pass... what current laws will change  in NJ?? Wouldn't this passing effect the gun ban list and magazine capacities? 

i think that the single thing it will accomplish for us is that we will finally be allowed to carry here. there won't be much nj can do to prevent it if this goes through.

[USA123 5]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

i think that the single thing it will accomplish for us is that we will finally be allowed to carry here. there won't be much nj can do to prevent it if this goes through.

Well i really hope it does. And if it does it will take about 12 months to get a permit to buy a hand gun lmao

 

[Darrenf 422]

Well i really hope it does. And if it does it will take about 12 months to get a permit to buy a hand gun lmao
 

It took nine months for me this year, so that’s not really any different.

[BobA 1,235]

12 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

It took nine months for me this year, so that’s not really any different.

NJSP?  Or locals?

[Darrenf 422]

NJSP?  Or locals?

NJSP. Buena barracks.

[BobA 1,235]

2 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

NJSP. Buena barracks.

Yup. Kingswood Barracks here. Entering my fourth. 

[124gr9mm 859]

14 hours ago, capt14k said:

The current version would in essence eliminate magazine restrictions; at least for handguns.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Not sure about this.

I looked at the text of the resolution and there's no mention of magazine restrictions or any other limitations on firearms other than the ability to carry concealed, so all other laws would apply.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that the first thing NJ police will do when they encounter someone with an out of state concealed carry permit will be to check their magazines for any "high capacity" magazines.

While it would be ludicrous, someone from out of state with 17 rounds in their Glock G17 could get arrested in NJ while someone with 15 rounds in it would be fine.

[capt14k 2,052]

Not sure about this.  I looked at the text of the resolution and there's no mention of magazine restrictions or any other limitations on firearms other than the ability to carry concealed, so all other laws would apply.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would imagine that the first thing NJ police will do when they encounter someone with an out of state concealed carry permit will be to check their magazines for any "high capacity" magazines.

While it would be ludicrous, someone from out of state with 17 rounds in their Glock G17 could get arrested in NJ while someone with 15 rounds in it would be fine.

 

 

You must have missed this part 

 

 

“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes ANY MAGAZINE for use in a HANDGUN and ANY AMMUNITION loaded into the handgun or its magazine.

 

And this part

 

 

person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of ANY LAW or ANY RULE or REGULATION of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

 

HR-38 also supersedes NJ restrictions on hollow point ammo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[124gr9mm 859]

I apologize if my first post came across as combative.

I didn't miss that part.  I just interpreted it differently than you.

I read it that people with out of state c permits couldn't be arrested/detained for charges "related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms".

The way I read it that left the door open for charges related to other laws (like magazine and ammo limits).

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize if this has already been decided.

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 hours ago, 124gr9mm said:

I apologize if my first post came across as combative.

I didn't miss that part.  I just interpreted it differently than you.

I read it that people with out of state c permits couldn't be arrested/detained for charges "related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms".

The way I read it that left the door open for charges related to other laws (like magazine and ammo limits).

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize if this has already been decided.

The law defines handgun to include "any magazine" or "any ammunition".

IANAL but any means any.

[voyager9 3,434]

16 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

The law defines handgun to include "any magazine" or "any ammunition".

IANAL but any means any.

Right. So you can have any mag and ammo while carrying but as soon as you take it off and put it in your safe you are a felon. 

[Zeke 5,504]

We have a lot of work ahead. It starts by saying “ I can”

[capt14k 2,052]

I apologize if my first post came across as combative.

I didn't miss that part.  I just interpreted it differently than you.

I read it that people with out of state c permits couldn't be arrested/detained for charges "related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms".

The way I read it that left the door open for charges related to other laws (like magazine and ammo limits).

Again, I'm not a lawyer, so I apologize if this has already been decided.

My apologies if my post came off rude. It actually wasn't my intent that time. However any does mean any. The law must be read in its entirety.

 

 

 

[GRIZ 3,369]

45 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Right. So you can have any mag and ammo while carrying but as soon as you take it off and put it in your safe you are a felon. 

That's scary if you think that way.  

If you are allowed to carry something you are allowed to possess it.  I don't think the state could successfully prosecute you in the scenario you present.

[voyager9 3,434]

47 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

That's scary if you think that way.  

If you are allowed to carry something you are allowed to possess it.  I don't think the state could successfully prosecute you in the scenario you present.

I agree they shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t. The bill specifically says it does not usurp local laws and it only covers CCW. Possession of a prohibited item like a magazine >15 while not carrying would violate the law. 

I can see the state trying this to stick it to residence who dare try CCW with out of state permits.  It would be a small subset of CCW holders tho

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

Right. So you can have any mag and ammo while carrying but as soon as you take it off and put it in your safe you are a felon. 

Keep in mind this law, like many Federal laws, starts out saying "Notwithstanding any provision" of a state or local law.  Notwithstanding means "in spite of".  That means the state laws don't count unless Congress says they do.  The only state laws that count as far as this statute is concerned is where the states say you can carry.  Right now that's schools, courthouses, and casinos. NJ will undoubtedly add a bunch of other places of they go overboard that will be overturned in Federal court.

Someone asked here or in the other thread about carry on private property and thinks they would have to get permission of the owner before they did.  Not so.  What that means if you're caught carrying on private property without permission and asked to leave by the owner you must do so.  If there's a posted sign at the entrance and you ignore it there is currently no penalty for doing that in NJ AFAIK.

Article VI of the COTUS establishes the COTUS and all laws made by Congress to be the law if the land and enforceable in every state.  A state does not have an option to follow Federal law.  It must.

The only reason states are getting away being sanctuary states and marijuana laws is because there were 8 years of Obamanocchio.

[GRIZ 3,369]

2 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I agree they shouldn’t. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t. The bill specifically says it does not usurp local laws and it only covers CCW. Possession of a prohibited item like a magazine >15 while not carrying would violate the law. 

I can see the state trying this to stick it to residence who dare try CCW with out of state permits.  It would be a small subset of CCW holders tho

I totally disagree with you on this.  You are entitled to think however you want.

How are police going to know you're not carrying in your home?

Using your logic an licensed out of state CCW could be arrested when they take their gun off in a hotel room.

Amy arrest for "possession" would be ludicrous.  Police and prosecutors want to make arrests and try cases that win.  If they were to pursue a case like you outline it would result in acquittal. 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

@voyager9 meet stick..

[GRIZ 3,369]

@voyager9 please tell me something you are allowed to possess outside the home but not in the home.  If you can come up with something I might consider your argument.