Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 Hudson, NC

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

1 minute ago, 1LtCAP said:

and work together, rather than dissing each other.

 that said......presume this bill passes this coming monday morning as worded. how can nj fight this?

Need a law suit in the queue.

[jackandjill 683]

1 minute ago, 1LtCAP said:

and work together, rather than dissing each other.

 that said......presume this bill passes this coming monday morning as worded. how can nj fight this?

Who said it will pass on monday ? Big fight is in Senate. Last time they defeated similar bill with couple of votes. Long way to go.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

Just now, 1LtCAP said:

and work together, rather than dissing each other.

 that said......presume this bill passes this coming monday morning as worded. how can nj fight this?

That is a fine question, I am not sure - can a state refuse to abide by federal law?

These are murky waters right?  One moment we like states rights - next moment we want federal intervention. ....  which is it?

[Darrenf 422]

I'm loving all the purse clutching in this article.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-29/get-ready-for-concealed-guns-in-all-50-states

2 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

Who said it will pass on monday ? Big fight is in Senate. Last time they defeated similar bill with couple of votes. Long way to go.

I don't think he was implying that it will pass or be up for vote on Monday, just assume it's coming, how can we stay two steps ahead.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

3 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

Who said it will pass on monday ? Big fight is in Senate. Last time they defeated similar bill with couple of votes. Long way to go.

nobody. i was asking a theoretical question.

[Darrenf 422]

6 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

That is a fine question, I am not sure - can a state refuse to abide by federal law?

 

Well, Murphy already stated he want's us to be a sanctuary state, so unless the feds call their bluff, yes states can refuse to abide by federal law, which itself seems a silly question considering how much of the Constitution NJ already thumbs it's nose at.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

3 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

That is a fine question, I am not sure - can a state refuse to abide by federal law?

These are murky waters right?  One moment we like states rights - next moment we want federal intervention. ....  which is it?

i don't think they can. while we all like to cry "states rights" the fact is that federal law trumps(pun intended) state law.

just look at legal weed. while many states have legalized it.....federal law can still land ya a in the greybar motel for it.

[voyager9 3,434]

6 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

and work together, rather than dissing each other.

 that said......presume this bill passes this coming monday morning as worded. how can nj fight this?

As @GRIZ mentioned on the first page of this thread: the bill could cause some constitutional issues if it forces non-resident permits to be accepted in-state. Which may be why the current bill has the wording that Peel and I are confused about. 

3 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

Well, Murphy already stated he want's us to be a sanctuary state, so unless the feds call their bluff, yes states can refuse to abide by federal law, which itself seems a silly question considering how much of the Constitution NJ already thumbs it' nose at.

There is a difference between a state not enforcing federal law and actively violating it. 

[1LtCAP 4,263]

states buckled with the 55mph thing..........they could've left their speed limits where they wanted back in the 70's/80's....but they buckled to fed pressure.

 

[jackandjill 683]

9 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

nobody. i was asking a theoretical question.

I am pretty sure they (NJ Elite) got bills stacked sky high. Jan rolls in and they throw them so fast that our heads would be spinning.

Then they could expand definitions of school zones, govt buildings, libraries, churches, places of worship, places of congregation more than 2 people, blah blah blah... and ofcourse "authorized personnel" are always exempted from all of nonsense.

What would be real crazy (even for NJ) is to have something like Garden State Parkway put up notices that say "No Firearms".  This is one example where so called "private-public" partnership sh*t could be abused.

They could also pass laws that REQUIRE permission of owner of private place before you enter with your concealed carry. Its the opposite of "gun free zone". Imagining having to get permission from store owner before you enter to get cup of coffee.

All sorts of crazy stuff could happen.. but then again... we are looooooong way from it.

One you map out all the exclusions, one cannot even p*ss through NJ.

[Darrenf 422]

1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

As @GRIZ mentioned on the first page of this thread: the bill could cause some constitutional issues if it forces non-resident permits to be accepted in-state. Which may be why the current bill has the wording that Peel and I are confused about. 

There is a difference between a state not enforcing federal law and actively violating it. 

Not if the feds don't enforce it.

[1LtCAP 4,263]

6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

As @GRIZ mentioned on the first page of this thread: the bill could cause some constitutional issues if it forces non-resident permits to be accepted in-state. Which may be why the current bill has the wording that Peel and I are confused about. 

There is a difference between a state not enforcing federal law and actively violating it. 

i'm curious how it would cause constitutional issues?

 

 shit.....put it under interstate commerce. that's how they pass everything they want. even if it's not under interstate commerce.

[ChrisJM981 924]

4 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

I am pretty sure they (NJ Elite) got bills stacked sky high. Jan rolls in and they throw them so fast that our heads would be spinning.

Then they could expand definitions of school zones, ANY govt buildings, libraries, churches, places of worship, places of congregation more than 2 people, blah blah blah... and ofcourse "authorized personnel" are always exempted from all of nonsense.

One you map out all the exclusions, one cannot even p*ss through NJ.

At which point I kindly ask our legislators to walk around their gun free areas in the parasitic warzones they've created. At night, unarmed, with no security. 

[Darrenf 422]

1 minute ago, ChrisJM981 said:

At which point I kindly ask our legislators to walk around their gun free areas in the parasitic warzones they've created. At night, unarmed, with no security. 

Like they give a damn what we ask them to do or that we have to live with restrictions they imposed and exclude themselves from. LMAO

[voyager9 3,434]

3 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

i'm curious how it would cause constitutional issues?

 

 shit.....put it under interstate commerce. that's how they pass everything they want. even if it's not under interstate commerce.

Certainly they’re basing it on Interstate Commerse. I thought it was mentioned in the bill somewhere. 

I believe the issue would be that if the bill required the state to accept non-resident permits from its own citizens. I forget the original rationale behind that but it’s somewhere earlier in the thread. 

[Darrenf 422]

Read the last line of this quotation.  I almost spit my coffee on my keyboard when I read that! LMAO!!

 

Quote

Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called it “total hypocrisy” for gun proponents here to ignore the states’ rights issues at play here.

“Republicans and conservatives are supporting something that completely denigrates states’ rights – takes away the ability of states to decide the types of laws and approaches that work best for that state,” Thomas said in a phone interview Tuesday.

Hudson’s bill requires gun owners traveling across state lines to have a valid identification document and a valid license or concealed-carry permit from their home state. But Thomas notes that law-enforcement officers will have no way to verify the permits they might see since there is no national permitting system or database.

Gun owners who believe that they were wrongly questioned about their permits would also be empowered to sue law-enforcement officers under Hudson’s bill. Thomas said this provision would shift the balance of power.

“They’re actually creating a greater burden on prosecution to prove a violation of these laws,” she said. “They’re treating it like a civil right here, which it is not considered to be by the Supreme Court, at least not yet.”

Source-https://www.courthousenews.com/bill-expanding-conceal-carry-rights-expected-to-clear-vote/

[1LtCAP 4,263]

sheesh......it truly is a virus.

 

 

as for states rights.......states that are abusing their power need to be reigned in. the only way to do this is to do what hudson's proposing.

[Xchief30 5]

This is from the Bloomberg news story, if passes as written, we'll be carrying in TRENTON .

"A slew of amendments brought by Democrats were shot down, including a proposal by Nadler to ban violent offenders from possessing a concealed handgun and another from Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas to exclude those convicted of domestic violence and stalking. A residency amendment, brought by Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California, was also rejected. The amendment sought to prevent “permit shopping” by prohibiting those living in states with stringent conceal carry permit regulations from applying for permits in more lax states."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[1LtCAP 4,263]

jusyt hope they can/t get those ammendments added in the senate

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

5 minutes ago, Xchief30 said:

This is from the Bloomberg news story, if passes as written, we'll be carrying in TRENTON .

"A slew of amendments brought by Democrats were shot down, including a proposal by Nadler to ban violent offenders from possessing a concealed handgun and another from Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas to exclude those convicted of domestic violence and stalking. A residency amendment, brought by Democrat Zoe Lofgren of California, was also rejected. The amendment sought to prevent “permit shopping” by prohibiting those living in states with stringent conceal carry permit regulations from applying for permits in more lax states."

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Ooohhh! That's interesting. That does shed some light. Maybe that wording is NOT as harsh as I thought after all. Of course, this has a long way to go.

What I think is so interesting is that the legislators in states like ours and New York have only themselves to blame if this DOES pass. After all, if it weren't for insane, abusive cases like what our state did to Shaneen Allen, I think there wouldn't even have been such a push for this law in the first place.

[ChrisJM981 924]

41 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

Yeah, I'm still not reading it that way. As someone else mentioned, that may just refer to states that don't REQUIRE a CC permit in the first place. Maybe I'm being too anal? I think that's a loophole that NJ will exploit. But, maybe you folks are right... and I'm just being too negative?

1. You can never be too anal. 

2. I was going to explain this, but loose lips sink ships. 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

1 minute ago, ChrisJM981 said:

1. You can never be too anal. 

2. I was going to explain this, but loose lips sink ships. 

I truly believe we're not giving anything away... we all know our anti-2A-obsessed legislators will fight tooth and nail and this will all ultimately be battled in the court system anyway.  Honestly? I'd make a push to personally get some extra freelance gigs to devote some of my meagre earnings to the 2A org bringing the most viable lawsuits. It's time, people. It's overdue.

[jackandjill 683]

5 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I truly believe we're not giving anything away... we all know our anti-2A-obsessed legislators will fight tooth and nail and this will all ultimately be battled in the court system anyway.  Honestly? I'd make a push to personally get some extra freelance gigs to devote some of my meagre earnings to the 2A org bringing the most viable lawsuits. It's time, people. It's overdue.

After cancelling my membership with another organization that shall go unnamed, I donated to NJ2AS. My gift for the Taser/Stungun case.

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Just now, jackandjill said:

After cancelling my membership with another organization that shall go unnamed, I donated to NJ2AS. My gift for the Taser/Stungun case.

Eh, I'm not about to join you on that particular venture. I still think Roubian is a loose cannon who takes one step forward then two giant steps backwards. But, I will GLADLY eat crow on this if I turn out to be horribly wrong. 

[Xchief30 5]

Eh, I'm not about to join you on that particular venture. I still think Roubian is a loose cannon who takes one step forward then two giant steps backwards. But, I will GLADLY eat crow on this if I turn out to be horribly wrong. [emoji6]

You're up to Crow ? I'm still digesting my Turkey [emoji16]

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[GRIZ 3,369]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

states buckled with the 55mph thing..........they could've left their speed limits where they wanted back in the 70's/80's....but they buckled to fed pressure.

 

The 55 mph speed limit,  .08 blood alcohol, and other things get tied to Federal highway money.  They were requirements to get it.  That's how the Feds get states to comply.

[68chris 20]

 

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,

who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,

and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm

or 

is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

[68chris 20]

Here is the proper way to read this to clear up any confusion.

In the above bill, commas are ‘ands’. To qualify to carry in NJ, as a NJ resident, you must meet all of the reqirements written that are seperated by commas and the final “and” at the end of the sentence. A comma is never used to describe the last of multiple items. “and” is used.

NJ residents should not care what is written after the “or”, it means nothing and does not apply to NJ residents.

 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

Winning!

[Downtownv 1,777]

5 hours ago, GRIZ said:

The 55 mph speed limit,  .08 blood alcohol, and other things get tied to Federal highway money.  They were requirements to get it.  That's how the Feds get states to comply.

This so funny the Feds Bribe the states, with the state's own money.

The Federal Government runs the largest organized crime operation in the world. 

The Ultimate Ponzi Scheme.