Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

[Fred2 367]

So, any one else start looking at what gun they want for CC in NJ?

[Zeke 5,504]

You mean like NJ has been denying the 2A for decades?

We( NJ) have not had a case make it to SCOTUS

On this.

Every time it gets close, poof, somebody gets a permit.

[Zeke 5,504]

So, any one else start looking at what gun they want for CC in NJ?

Actually me and the Mrs are looking for good training recommendations

[PDM 91]

Its not nullification.  A state can't unilaterally ignore or nullify a federal statute but it clearly has the ability to challenge a law as being unconstitutional in federal court.  You know -- the whole balance of powers thing.  The grounds would be the 10th amendment based on state's rights and state soveriegnty -- NJ would argue that the federal government can't force a state to accept another state's permits, at least for its own citizens (NJ would probably lose a challenge to the reciprocity law to the extent it relates to citizens of other states).  NJ would file a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the reciprocity law is unconstitutional.  It would, at the same time, seek an injunction preventing implementation of the law pending final decision on its lawsuit (which would take years to go from district court, to ct of appeals and finally (and quite likely) to the supreme court.  That injunction would almost certainly be granted, at least by one of the many liberal federal ct judges in nj and in the 3d circuit.  To get an injunction NJ would need to show (1) ireparable harm if the injunction isn't granted (ie -- "help us, people will be killing each other in the streets if we don't get the injunction), which they will likely succeed on and (2) likelihood of success on the merits (ie, must show the 10th amendment argument at least has a chance of succeeding.  That is the way the legal game will play out, end result being the law won't be operable, at least not in NJ and possibly in any state if the injunction extends that far.

 

For example, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction against implementation of Obama's overtime rule.  This would be the same process, different issue.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/11/22/texas-judge-issues-nationwide-injunction-against-obamas-overtime-rule/#2e2b629a747f

[ramnj 8]

IMO.....I could see NJ requiring a qualification test that would be impossible for most to pass.

 

 

Probably the same as the one retired LEO's have to take for the CCL.

[Newtonian 453]

On the off chance that we could get "all NJ gun owners to spend 5 minutes on this" please remember the goal is to convince eight senators. Period. We don't need to preach or beg or whine. No point wasting time on either staunchly pro-2A senators from strongly pro-2A states or the likes of Schumer/Hillibrand. I would focus on democratic senators from the "split" states I listed earlier, then the democrats from select shall-issue midwestern states. If someone is reading this who is a constituent of a pro-2A senator somewhere you could perhaps ask their staff to provide the names of senators who may be on the fence. These are the people we need to convince. 

 

This is the first "thing" I've read here that there's any reason to be positive about. Everything else has been shit with whipped puke on top sitting on a bed of syphillitic scabs. 

 

Whatever you write or say remember this becomes another poop shake if nonresident licenses are not included. Don't be surprised if the aforementioned Schumer, etc. don't offer that option as a compromise. 

[68chris 20]

Heller decision said the states have a right to regulate, and also Heller was vauge concerning if the right extends outside the home. That is how NJ and a couple of other holdout states have been able to do what they have been doing.

This new bill will solve all of this.

 

Everyone should read the Heller decision in its entirety. If you really want to see how close we came as a country to losing our 2a rights, read the dissenting opinion as well. Remember there were 4 dissenters, including the Chief Justice.

 

We are very very lucky that President elect Trump won.

[Indianajonze 379]

Cali won't fight this. Illinois won't fight this.

Nj md and hi maybe.

 

my money's on new york being the very first to fight it. 

[Zeke 5,504]

Hmmn, they issue. Maybe. Forgot about them.

 

Idk, Ny state is very akin to Pa

[PDM 91]

Heller decision said the states have a right to regulate, and also Heller was vauge concerning if the right extends outside the home. That is how NJ and a couple of other holdout states have been able to do what they have been doing.

This new bill will solve all of this.

 

Everyone should read the Heller decision in its entirety. If you really want to see how close we came as a country to losing our 2a rights, read the dissenting opinion as well. Remember there were 4 dissenters, including the Chief Justice.

 

We are very very lucky that President elect Trump won.

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but no, this bill won't necessarily solve all this.  There is the 10th amendment/state's right constitutional issue that certain states will most likely litigate -- see my post above.  The only way to definitively put the outside the home issue to rest in NJ is 1) a sea change in voting demographics such that Republicans take control of the NJ legislature (not gonna happen) or 2) a Supreme Ct case affirming right to carry outside the home.  But yes, we are moving in the right direction and very lucky that Trump won, at least on the gun issue.

[Zeke 5,504]

Its not nullification. A state can't unilaterally ignore or nullify a federal statute but it clearly has the ability to challenge a law as being unconstitutional in federal court. You know -- the whole balance of powers thing. The grounds would be the 10th amendment based on state's rights and state soveriegnty -- NJ would argue that the federal government can't force a state to accept another state's permits, at least for its own citizens (NJ would probably lose a challenge to the reciprocity law to the extent it relates to citizens of other states). NJ would file a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the reciprocity law is unconstitutional. It would, at the same time, seek an injunction preventing implementation of the law pending final decision on its lawsuit (which would take years to go from district court, to ct of appeals and finally (and quite likely) to the supreme court. That injunction would almost certainly be granted, at least by one of the many liberal federal ct judges in nj and in the 3d circuit. To get an injunction NJ would need to show (1) ireparable harm if the injunction isn't granted (ie -- "help us, people will be killing each other in the streets if we don't get the injunction), which they will likely succeed on and (2) likelihood of success on the merits (ie, must show the 10th amendment argument at least has a chance of succeeding. That is the way the legal game will play out, end result being the law won't be operable, at least not in NJ and possibly in any state if the injunction extends that far.

 

For example, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction against implementation of Obama's overtime rule. This would be the same process, different issue.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/11/22/texas-judge-issues-nationwide-injunction-against-obamas-overtime-rule/#2e2b629a747f

That's a smidge different, rules vs laws

[PDM 91]

Zeke -- why are rules different than laws when it comes to state challenge?  Are you saying that states can only bring a constitutional challenge to federal rules but not laws?  If I missed something please let me know, but I don't think that is correct.

[Zeke 5,504]

Executive makes rules, congress makes laws.

 

Like I said a smidge

[mipafox 438]

Heller decision said the states have a right to regulate, and also Heller was vauge concerning if the right extends outside the home. That is how NJ and a couple of other holdout states have been able to do what they have been doing.

This new bill will solve all of this.

That was dicta and holds ZERO legal weight. It is merely a signal to complainants of how that court at that time might look at an issue if it came before them.

 

I think Griz is correct.

He is. If you read it correctly.

 

A state can't challenge a federal law just because they don't like it.

 

Not reading correctly.

 

A state can't challenge a federal law just because they don't like it.

 

Read correctly.

[mipafox 438]

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but no, this bill won't necessarily solve all this. There is the 10th amendment/state's right constitutional issue that certain states will most likely litigate -- see my post above. The only way to definitively put the outside the home issue to rest in NJ is 1) a sea change in voting demographics such that Republicans take control of the NJ legislature (not gonna happen) or 2) a Supreme Ct case affirming right to carry outside the home. But yes, we are moving in the right direction and very lucky that Trump won, at least on the gun issue.

States do not have Rights and Rights are not mentioned in the Tenth Amendment.

[John Willett 70]

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, but no, this bill won't necessarily solve all this.  There is the 10th amendment/state's right constitutional issue that certain states will most likely litigate -- see my post above.  The only way to definitively put the outside the home issue to rest in NJ is 1) a sea change in voting demographics such that Republicans take control of the NJ legislature (not gonna happen) or 2) a Supreme Ct case affirming right to carry outside the home.  But yes, we are moving in the right direction and very lucky that Trump won, at least on the gun issue.

 

A third approach that Evan Nappen has been working is to have the courts recognize that the exemptions that we all rely on to possess handguns are merely defenses to the crime of possession. We are still subject to arrest for possession while in our homes.  This approach would possibly eliminate the need for a finding on carry outside the home.  

 

 

We( NJ) have not had a case make it to SCOTUS

On this.

Every time it gets close, poof, somebody gets a permit.

 

I understand your point here, but I suppose it depends on how you define whether a case "made it" to SCOTUS.  NJ had Drake get denied cert by the court, which happened to cases from a couple other states as well, if the court were sure to swing in our favor it likely would have been heard.  

[Zeke 5,504]

A third approach that Evan Nappen has been working is to have the courts recognize that the exemptions that we all rely on to possess handguns are merely defenses to the crime of possession. We are still subject to arrest for possession while in our homes. This approach would possibly eliminate the need for a finding on carry outside the home.

 

 

 

I understand your point here, but I suppose it depends on how you define whether a case "made it" to SCOTUS. NJ had Drake get denied cert by the court, which happened to cases from a couple other states as well, if the court were sure to swing in our favor it likely would have been heard.

My friend.

Denied is denied.

[Jfoster99 80]

I don't thing any version of this where people can carry in there home state on a non-resident CCW will pass. Sorry NJ.... but as most versions are currently written a NJ resident with a Utah non resident CCW will be able to carry in NYC and vice versa...

 

I think once the reality of this settles in and we show that the streets are not running red with blood that the rest of the dominos will fall in place for us. Just a matter of time...

[siderman 1,137]

A third approach that Evan Nappen has been working is to have the courts recognize that the exemptions that we all rely on to possess handguns are merely defenses to the crime of possession. We are still subject to arrest for possession while in our homes.  This approach would possibly eliminate the need for a finding on carry outside the home.  

 

 

 

I understand your point here, but I suppose it depends on how you define whether a case "made it" to SCOTUS.  NJ had Drake get denied cert by the court, which happened to cases from a couple other states as well, if the court were sure to swing in our favor it likely would have been heard.  

Refresh my memory...How are we subject to arrest for possession in our home? 

[Indianajonze 379]

I don't thing any version of this where people can carry in there home state on a non-resident CCW will pass. Sorry NJ.... but as most versions are currently written a NJ resident with a Utah non resident CCW will be able to carry in NYC and vice versa...

 

 

you should re-read the bill then. that's the intent of the law. as for whether it will pass or not, i say the odds are quite good. we shall see as they say

[Indianajonze 379]

Hmmn, they issue. Maybe. Forgot about them.

 

Idk, Ny state is very akin to Pa

 

they have andrew cuomo (mr ny safe act) and chuck schumer. i agree there's not much issue in ny state. the issue for them is the millions of tourists visiting the 5 boroughs with their ccw

 

ok side and somewhat related question. if i have nra training certification, what specifically are the steps i need to take to obtain a utah and / or florida non-resident permit? i'm reading their respective sites and it seems all i need to do is get fingerprinted, photographed and have my form sent in, correct? any place that will do the fingerprinting/photograph for a reasonable fee in north jersey? i'm 99% positive that since i already have the training certification (with live fire)  i don't need to pay to attend any further classes. 

[NJRulz 82]

they have andrew cuomo (mr ny safe act) and chuck schumer. i agree there's not much issue in ny state. the issue for them is the millions of tourists visiting the 5 boroughs with their ccw

 

ok side and somewhat related question. if i have nra training certification, what specifically are the steps i need to take to obtain a utah and / or florida non-resident permit? i'm reading their respective sites and it seems all i need to do is get fingerprinted, photographed and have my form sent in, correct? any place that will do the fingerprinting/photograph for a reasonable fee in north jersey? i'm 99% positive that since i already have the training certification (with live fire)  i don't need to pay to attend any further classes.

 

I recently received my FL non-resident ccw after attending the basic NRA pistol class at gun for hire/woodland park. I had photo, finger printing and paperwork filled out there. I just wrote a check for the fee and mailed it the app. 60-days later I was sent my card. Reach out to them. Maybe you just need to pay a nominal fee instead of taking the entire class w/ ccw option.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Most PDs don't do ink fingerprints. Florida rules dictate you send for their kit which includes their fingerprint cards.

Florida also requires a LE agency do the prints and sign off on the card. Your app must then be notarized. You must supply a passport photo as well.

 

I did my FL non res adventure on my own and it was a nightmare! If GFH will do everything in one visit, it is well worth it!

Don't overlook the NH non res permit as the only requirement is a filled out application form and a check for $100.

[capt14k 2,052]

I had no problem with filling out Florida on my own. Went to my local PD with fingerprint card from application package. Sent in copy of my NJ Hunting License. Had passport pictures done at Walgreens used for both Florida and Utah.

 

Utah I think you have to take one of their licensed instructor classes. It was easy and they provided free food at the Fireside Bar & Grill in Marlboro sponsored by Legend Firearms.

 

NH was the easiest just send check and app. I did it early and sent copy of NJ FID, NJ Driver's License, Utah & Florida CCW Licenses. My understanding is none of the licenses are necessary.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[siderman 1,137]

Gun For Hire has the form package and will do the prints and photos for $50 iirc. Just call for appt as the prints are done by a staff leo (retired?) and not always there.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

Yes, none of the licenses were required for NH. My big problem with Florida was the fingerprints! FL requires ink and my local PD said we don't do ink!

NJSP told me no prints unless I am an applicant to join the NJSP! Other towns in my area said no, go to your home town.  I finally found one detective in my home town

that agreed to print me with ink. It took him a good 10 minutes to find an old tube of ink and a roller and finally the deed was done.

 

If you can get ink prints from a LE agency go for it! I would have gladly driven 90 minutes North to GFH for $50 to avoid the aggravation I went through just to

get the fingerprints!

[GRIZ 3,369]

Its not nullification.  A state can't unilaterally ignore or nullify a federal statute but it clearly has the ability to challenge a law as being unconstitutional in federal court.  You know -- the whole balance of powers thing.  The grounds would be the 10th amendment based on state's rights and state soveriegnty -- NJ would argue that the federal government can't force a state to accept another state's permits, at least for its own citizens (NJ would probably lose a challenge to the reciprocity law to the extent it relates to citizens of other states).  NJ would file a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the reciprocity law is unconstitutional.  It would, at the same time, seek an injunction preventing implementation of the law pending final decision on its lawsuit (which would take years to go from district court, to ct of appeals and finally (and quite likely) to the supreme court.  That injunction would almost certainly be granted, at least by one of the many liberal federal ct judges in nj and in the 3d circuit.  To get an injunction NJ would need to show (1) ireparable harm if the injunction isn't granted (ie -- "help us, people will be killing each other in the streets if we don't get the injunction), which they will likely succeed on and (2) likelihood of success on the merits (ie, must show the 10th amendment argument at least has a chance of succeeding.  That is the way the legal game will play out, end result being the law won't be operable, at least not in NJ and possibly in any state if the injunction extends that far.

 

For example, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction against implementation of Obama's overtime rule.  This would be the same process, different issue.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2016/11/22/texas-judge-issues-nationwide-injunction-against-obamas-overtime-rule/#2e2b629a747f

That's a very negative view and not a very realistic one.

 

NJ could file a lawsuit. Anyone can file a lawsuit. It getting somewhere is another issue.

 

There are 22 Federal judges assigned to the District of NJ. There are also 2 vacancies. Those will be filled by Trump. There are 10 judges appointed by Carter, Clinton or Obama. The rest have been appointed by G.W. Bush and Reagan. There will be 2 by Trump. That will make 14 appointed by Republicans. The Chief Judge was appointed by G.W. Bush. AFAIK it's the Chief Judge who decides who gets what case. Odds are any case will be assigned to a Republican appointee.

 

There are already a variety of licenses issued by other states that are recognized in NJ.

 

Requesting an injunction to prevent implementation of the reciprocity probably won't go anywhere. The blood running in the streets argument won't work. Is the blood running in the streets in the other 49 states. Out of state active and retired LEOS have been carrying under LEOSA for some time. Ain't no blood in the streets.

 

Comparison to the overtime law isn't the same. There is no cost to anyone for a reciprocity law. The comity clause in the Constitution pretty much supports any reciprocity law.

[djw2033 28]

I know this is highly unlikely and should not be expected ..

 

But from a legal standpoint only...

 

Couldn't trump make an executive order for a constitutional carry?

[GRIZ 3,369]

I know this is highly unlikely and should not be expected ..

But from a legal standpoint only...

Couldn't trump make an executive order for a constitutional carry?

He might but that would have more points to argue than a law passed by Congress. An EO would be subject to more scrutiny by courts than a law passed by Congress.

[djw2033 28]

He might but that would have more points to argue than a law passed by Congress. An EO would be subject to more scrutiny by courts than a law passed by Congress.

I don't know.. trump is a wild card he may not give any craps about scrunity whatsoever.