Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

Even if that happens, we then have a case for relief based upon the 14th Amendment:  Equal Protection.  Yes it would have to be heard, but it would be a slam-dunk as 49 states' residents would have more rights than NJ residents.  I don't think the Anti's want that loss in the books, so something else will be used to rock the boat to make case law.  "Separate, but Equal" went the way of the Do-Do Bird :) 

FIFY. :)

Still, I have the same concerns HE has.  No matter what the Feds do in re: reciprocity, the staunch anti states will fight it to the death.  They have tons of lawyers and deep pockets for that sort of thing. As I keep saying, the only way to ensure compliance, I believe, is to tie disbursement of federal funds for various projects to compliance with those reciprocity laws. Whatever legal hurdles that entails will have to be resolved.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds just like New Hampshire after Scott Bach won his suit against them.
And now look at all the $100 non-resident cards they're selling. No references are checked & no training requirements like some other states. Sounds like the proverbial $100 bill printing press.


Just because they don't call references doesn't mean it is selling a carry permit...

They likely do a NICS check, which usually suffices for most people. If something comes up, I'm sure they will either deny for a reason or contact the references to get a better idea on who is applying. Besides, do you think criminals are regularly applying for NH non-resident permits?

Look at it this way... do you realize the s***storm that would start if they "sold" a permit to someone who was a criminal, and they used a firearm in the commission of a crime? Victims would own NH. No government entity will consider a money making scheme you allude to, with those kinds of implications. We are not talking about BS traffic tickets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money paid by a few thousand (that's a generous estimate) people from 5 or 6 states applying for out of state permits and/or renewing every 3 years or so will not fund the salaries and the operating costs of the division/unit assigned to process the paperwork and keep the records.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's where i see a problem for NJ.

 

NJ Resident goes to Florida and gets a CCW.  That person is under the jurisdiction of NJ as he or she resides there.

Will a conservative court agree that Florida's jurisdiction overrides NJ's jurisdiction of a NJ resident?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Screwball said:

 


Just because they don't call references doesn't mean it is selling a carry permit...

They likely do a NICS check, which usually suffices for most people. If something comes up, I'm sure they will either deny for a reason or contact the references to get a better idea on who is applying. Besides, do you think criminals are regularly applying for NH non-resident permits?

Look at it this way... do you realize the s***storm that would start if they "sold" a permit to someone who was a criminal, and they used a firearm in the commission of a crime? Victims would own NH. No government entity will consider a money making scheme you allude to, with those kinds of implications. We are not talking about BS traffic tickets.

Issuing a carry permit is not issuing a firearm. If they sold a permit to someone who was a criminal that would still not put a gun in the hands of a criminal just the right to carry a gun... Its like getting a DL without the ability to get a car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Issuing a carry permit is not issuing a firearm. If they sold a permit to someone who was a criminal that would still not put a gun in the hands of a criminal just the right to carry a gun... Its like getting a DL without the ability to get a car.


Never said it did...

My post was in response to the statement that they are selling permits. If they are doing a background prior to issuing a permit, that isn't selling. If it were selling a permit, anyone... no matter of criminal history, would be able to get one. Money would automatically equate to a permit.

Unlike a car, if you are stopped for whatever and say that you have a NH permit and are carrying a firearm, does that prove you legally purchased the firearm (cars are registered and insured, which is easier to check on the status than a firearm)? What can the L/E that stopped you do? Check to see if the firearm was reported stolen? The permit shows that at the date of issuance, you did not have anything that NH saw as a reason to deny you for the permit. If that wasn't the case, like being alluded to, it would be a way to mask a criminal from illegally carrying a firearm. Again, it is moot because they do a NICS check prior to issuing (what your $100 partially goes towards, as well as their record keeping).

The NH permit is along the lines of a NJ FID. It shows the person is not a "prohibited" person. To say it is being sold is a big stretch, and kind of is tossed out for the fact that they are doing an investigation into the applicant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do they do a nics check when issuing the NH ccw for out of state residents?


Just reading the permit application... your signature is consent to "be investigated as allowed by law," and "release of information." Just some keywords, since I'm on my phone.

If they aren't calling references, that runs down to the one way they are completing an investigation... shy of that psychic that went to jail a few years back. I've never heard of them contacting NJ L/E, so maybe I'm wrong. But in this age, can a L/E agency really rubber stamp a permit like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently, pols in states like CA, NJ, IL and NY have all been harping the same talking point; their crime problems come from out of state guns. They say that lax gun laws in neighboring states are the reason for all the ills of these states. Again, "lax gun laws" of neighboring states. 

This sets up the narrative that lax carry permit laws in other states will cause a similar increase is something bad. I can hear it now, "we don't want these states with lax CCW laws exporting their problems to NJ" 

If some on here have a belief that some states may be "selling" carry permits, what will the highly paid antis say? 

NJ, CA, NY and IL are outliers. Look at the shipping restrictions of most online retailers of ammo and guns etc. Most "over comply" just to not have to deal with it. Bloomie and Co. are still trying to find a way of suing the manufacturers, imagine a lawsuit between NJ and NH for granting a permit to say one George Zimmerman? Because under reciprocity that idiot would be carrying here. 

Just sayin'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Just reading the permit application... your signature is consent to "be investigated as allowed by law," and "release of information." Just some keywords, since I'm on my phone.

If they aren't calling references, that runs down to the one way they are completing an investigation... shy of that psychic that went to jail a few years back. I've never heard of them contacting NJ L/E, so maybe I'm wrong. But in this age, can a L/E agency really rubber stamp a permit like that?


Regarding stamping. Look how Utah does it. Send in all paperwork and record time, getting your ccw with a letter that simply states that they will be conducting an investigation and if you are found to have a criminal record, among other legal stuff, they will want your ccw returned.

How is that for laxed and trustworthy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding stamping. Look how Utah does it. Send in all paperwork and record time, getting your ccw with a letter that simply states that they will be conducting an investigation and if you are found to have a criminal record, among other legal stuff, they will want your ccw returned.

How is that for laxed and trustworthy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If I had to deal with multiple wives, I'd do some crazy crap, as well...

Seriously, even with the stipulation that if you are found to be a criminal that you must turn in your permit, that is just setting yourself up for problems. On the one hand, I see it getting people a permit that likely will be fine... as criminals tend to not go through the hassle and just carry without a permit. But still, people like to file a lawsuit when there is an issue related to anything done by a L/E agency... whether it is justified or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2017 at 11:46 PM, High Exposure said:

A thought-

If this passes, how long do you think states will continue to offer non-resident permits for out of state CCW holders?

The other states will start to shut down those divisions that cost money and manpower that are no longer necessary.

IE: If federal law states my NH permit is good in Nevada, why will Nevada spend money to keep a non-resident CCW division going?

If we as NJ residents can no longer get out of state carry permits because free states no longer need to provide non-res CCW, since their home state CCW license/permit is now accepted nationally, we will be the only people not able to carry in our own state.

NH still offers registration for MV to non residents. They purdy smert..... they want the $

I see them continuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Screwball said:

 


Just because they don't call references doesn't mean it is selling a carry permit...

They likely do a NICS check, which usually suffices for most people. If something comes up, I'm sure they will either deny for a reason or contact the references to get a better idea on who is applying. Besides, do you think criminals are regularly applying for NH non-resident permits?

Look at it this way... do you realize the s***storm that would start if they "sold" a permit to someone who was a criminal, and they used a firearm in the commission of a crime? Victims would own NH. No government entity will consider a money making scheme you allude to, with those kinds of implications. We are not talking about BS traffic tickets.

 

Ask Golf Battery. They are definitely not, jus printing cards....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, remixer said:

Here's where i see a problem for NJ.

 

NJ Resident goes to Florida and gets a CCW.  That person is under the jurisdiction of NJ as he or she resides there.

Will a conservative court agree that Florida's jurisdiction overrides NJ's jurisdiction of a NJ resident?

Isn't this the whole premise of reciprocity or constitutional carry (the two of which may be different)?  That no one state may validate or invalidate one's right to bear arms that is guaranteed by the constitution?

So similar to a DL, where no state shall impede or invalidate the basis of operation of a motor vehicle (unless that person did enough illegal activity to justify removal of the licensing privileges), shouldn't the same occur in this situation?

Unless revoked, NJ accepts licensure of someone from FL, including if the person is a dual resident and "resides" in NJ for some of the year.  

 

Maybe Im way off on this???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeke said:

As residents here, you need to look at the 2a as equals to 1a , etc.

clearly, we are infringed. 

Of course we are.  But to many, the rules don't prevent most firearms from ultimately being acquired.  

I personally resent the reference request more than anything. But its all stupid and doesn't make anyone safer unfortunately. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JHZR2 said:

Of course we are.  But to many, the rules don't prevent most firearms from ultimately being acquired.  

I personally resent the reference request more than anything. But its all stupid and doesn't make anyone safer unfortunately. 

It's an " undue burden "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...