S.446

[Fred2 367]

25 minutes ago, capt14k said:

The handgun must have been shipped interstate or foreign in a state other than their state of residence. NJ Made Iver Johnson that never left NJ can't be carried in NJ.

 

 

This too, is ambiguous.

If I purchased a Iver Johnson on line, and have it shipped to my local FFL, it has been shipped in interstate commerce.

and

This "shipped in interstate commerce" has been used to define all the goods. For example, if any Iver Jonson is sold out of state, then all of them are considered to be shipped in interstate commerce.

[capt14k 2,052]

This too, is ambiguous.

If I purchased a Iver Johnson on line, and have it shipped to my local FFL, it has been shipped in interstate commerce.

and

This "shipped in interstate commerce" has been used to define all the goods. For example, if any Iver Jonson is sold out of state, then all of them are considered to be shipped in interstate commerce.

 

This is true about any shipped out of state = all shipped. The wording though is only to prevent a challenge to the law

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[raz-0 1,259]

36 minutes ago, Zeke said:

March 1 2017

its December now.

Yes, but the language they and I are interpreting is still present in December 2017. So, not sure how the date matters one fucking bit. 

[capt14k 2,052]

Yes, but the language they and I are interpreting is still present in December 2017. So, not sure how the date matters one fucking bit. 

You are wrong in your interpretation

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[raz-0 1,259]

10 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

This too, is ambiguous.

If I purchased a Iver Johnson on line, and have it shipped to my local FFL, it has been shipped in interstate commerce.

and

This "shipped in interstate commerce" has been used to define all the goods. For example, if any Iver Jonson is sold out of state, then all of them are considered to be shipped in interstate commerce.

Good, we agree on that. Then please explain how the state of residence clause is applied and what to. 

I'll also accept any third party references to this bill being awesome rather than some poison pill shitshow. 

[Zeke 5,504]

1 minute ago, raz-0 said:

Yes, but the language they and I are interpreting is still present in December 2017. So, not sure how the date matters one fucking bit. 

Interpretation change, so does the bias reporting

[raz-0 1,259]

"“(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, 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 other than the State of residence of the individual that—"

 

That says to me that any individual not prhobited federally, and who has a carry permit form any state, may carry a concealed handgun that has been subjected to interstate commerce, and do so in any state other than their state of residence. 

I say this because the em dash is to be attached to either 

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or"

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and"

And if you graft them on, there is no way to grammatically parse "state of residence" to describe the travels of the weapon. There just isn't. 

 

 

SO for a new jersian you get the language 

"(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, 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 other than the State of residence of the individual that has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms."

 

Subject - individual. 

what kind of individual? one who is not prohibited from possessiong, transporting, shipping or receiving a firearn and who is carrying a government issues photo if and a valid license or permit issued by a state, any state that issue permits for concealed carry of a firearm. 

What may they do? They may carry. 

What may they carry? A concealed handgun other than a machinegun or DD. Said handgun must have been handled in interstate or foreign commercie. 

Where may they do this? In any tate that has a statute that allows residents of the state to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms other than the individual's state of residence. 

 

S 446 does not appear to do jack shit to help us other than give us standing to make a suit under equal protection. 

 

[capt14k 2,052]

"“(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, 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 other than the State of residence of the individual that—"

 

That says to me that any individual not prhobited federally, and who has a carry permit form any state, may carry a concealed handgun that has been subjected to interstate commerce, and do so in any state other than their state of residence. 

I say this because the em dash is to be attached to either 

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or"

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and"

And if you graft them on, there is no way to grammatically parse "state of residence" to describe the travels of the weapon. There just isn't. 

Your wrong there absolutely is and it is what it means

 

Those next two lines mean if the state allows CCW then they must recognize the permits of other states.

 

 

 

[raz-0 1,259]

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

If your permit says you’re a resident.... you’re a resident... it’s that simple. Don’t confuse with 6 month rule for taxes..

There are a shit ton of statutory definitions of "resident" 

This bill does not specify which one of them it means. Which means any AG can bring it to court and argue that point. It will mean whatever the judge decides it means ranging from the dictionary definition, to any of the statutory definitions, to totally making shit up because a "wise latina" knows best or some similar shit. 

I know what we want it to mean, but I don't see that in the text of S446 I'll gladly defer to lawyers who do this shit for a living, or even a lobbying group, becuase this is their bread and butter, but nra-ila is avoiding talking about it along with others. 

I'm certainly not defering to capt14k's educated "nuh-uh". 

 

[capt14k 2,052]

Well I do have a little experience with reading laws. Spent 2 years doing it. It's not something you easily forget.

 

Ask yourself this. Why is interstate commerce mentioned?

 

 

 

 

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

You still think this is going to pass and your going to carry in jersey.....   sheesh.

 

Never  - ever happen......  ever

 

Sorry to say...but I will sit back and see the show continue to evolve 

[Fred2 367]

The way that I am reading it, is that if you only have a NON resident permit, from anywhere, it will not let you carry in your home state.

It is good in the other 49

[capt14k 2,052]

I am not seeing how it can be read any other way, but hopefully when they reconcile the bills they straighten it out and say something to effect of we can pass this law because firearms fall under interstate commerce because that is their reasoning for the wording. It reads as the person, the object, the state.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[capt14k 2,052]

For the naysayers please read

 

(2) ......Is entitled and not prohibited from CCW in the State in which the individual resides..... may possess or carry a concealed handgun.....

 

(b) Conditions and Limitations - possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section should be subject to the same conditions and limitations, EXCEPT as to ELIGIBILITY to POSSESS or CARRY,...... who are licensed by the State.... OR NOT PROHIBITED by State from doing so.

 

[emoji767] Unrestricted License or Permit - In a State that allows CCW.....an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section SHALL BE permitted to CARRY a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

 

If not prohibited by State then you can carry In state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

32 minutes ago, Fred2 said:

The way that I am reading it, is that if you only have a NON resident permit, from anywhere, it will not let you carry in your home state.

It is good in the other 49

I concur. With your interpretation of S446

[JimB1 554]

29 minutes ago, capt14k said:

For the naysayers please read

 

(2) ......Is entitled and not prohibited from CCW in the State in which the individual resides..... may possess or carry a concealed handgun.....

 

(b) Conditions and Limitations - possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section should be subject to the same conditions and limitations, EXCEPT as to ELIGIBILITY to POSSESS or CARRY,...... who are licensed by the State.... OR NOT PROHIBITED by State from doing so.

 

Unrestricted License or Permit - In a State that allows CCW.....an individual carrying a concealed handgun under this section SHALL BE permitted to CARRY a concealed handgun according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

 

If not prohibited by State then you can carry In state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn’t NJ say “all guns are illegal except...” that to me means the same as “prohibited by state” and having lived in NJ almost 40 years I am sure that is what the state is going to say if it ever gets to court...

Maybe I am jaded at this point but this bill will not help us here in NJ at all...

-Jim

[Fred2 367]

here is the part I think bones us that only have a non resident permit.

 

“(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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 other than the State of residence of the individual that—

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

 

 

 

[capt14k 2,052]

Doesn’t NJ say “all guns are illegal except...” that to me means the same as “prohibited by state” and having lived in NJ almost 40 years I am sure that is what the state is going to say if it ever gets to court...
Maybe I am jaded at this point but this bill will not help us here in NJ at all... [emoji20]
-Jim

I agree this bill doesn't help with magazine restriction or hollow point ammo like HR-38 but does with carry in general

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[capt14k 2,052]

here is the part I think bones us that only have a non resident permit.
 

“(2) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled and not prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in the State in which the individual resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), 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 other than the State of residence of the individual that—

“(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

“(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
 
 
 

Again that is pertaining to the handgun itself and interstate commerce. It's their way of saying we can make this law under the Interstate Commerce clause. No sense in debating it anymore since the two bills have to be reconciled and if passed the final bill will look exactly like neither.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Zeke 5,504]

When Moore wins, I think we’ll see traction. Again, not our panacea 

[AdamM 42]

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

When Moore wins, I think we’ll see traction. Again, not our panacea 

Argh, looks like Moore lost. Not cool.  This is certainly not going to help us.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

8 minutes ago, AdamM said:

Argh, looks like Moore lost. Not cool.  This is certainly not going to help us.

well that sucks.

[JohnnyB 4,325]

It would have sucked for the Republicans no matter who won that race! A Moore win would have been bad for the mid term elections for the Republicans and a Moore win would have provided lots of fodder to the Dems to go after Trump.

On the other hand, the loss will make it harder for the Republicans to accomplish anything for the next 2 years!

[Zeke 5,504]

Well, this bill is done this year

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

5 hours ago, Zeke said:

Well, this bill is done this year

Really?

Lol

 

Aren't you being pessimistic?

This never had traction to make it - ever

 

The last 100 plus pages or more in multiple threads has all been - and exercise in verbal mast......ion

 

Never had a chance in the senate.....AND.....i tell you what else.

Midterms are going to hammer the GOP...they r probably gonna get trump on something and you are going to see awb 2.0 federally after the reaming we r going to take in Jersey in a couple of.months.

In lieu of jerking around with all this nice bs talk that never had a chance maybe just maybe we should focus.more on and try to retain what little rights we have....prior to become felons overnight....

[voyager9 3,434]

11 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Really?

Lol

 

Aren't you being pessimistic?

This never had traction to make it - ever

 

The last 100 plus pages or more in multiple threads has all been - and exercise in verbal mast......ion

 

Never had a chance in the senate.....AND.....i tell you what else.

Midterms are going to hammer the GOP...they r probably gonna get trump on something and you are going to see awb 2.0 federally after the reaming we r going to take in Jersey in a couple of.months.

In lieu of jerking around with all this nice bs talk that never had a chance maybe just maybe we should focus.more on and try to retain what little rights we have....prior to become felons overnight....

Did you take extra Sanctimonious pills this morning?  Cmon. 

[maintenanceguy 510]

10 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

...In lieu of jerking around with all this nice bs talk that never had a chance maybe just maybe we should focus.more on and try to retain what little rights we have....prior to become felons overnight....

Good luck.  I remember a similar fight several years ago with hundreds of us filling two hearing rooms and a huge overflow crowd in front of the capital building.  Two dozen anti gun families were brought in from Newtown.  Hundreds showed up to speak against the new anti-gun laws in Trenton.  I didn't count but I bet there were 1,500 of us or more.  We got our names on the list and took turns addressing the law and public safety committee all day speaking against the 21 new anti gun bills being considered.  They ran out of time before everyone had a chance to speak.

At the end of they day, they voted in favor of every single bill.

They don't care what we think.

[CAL. .30 M1 2,101]

11 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Did you take extra Sanctimonious pills this morning?  Cmon. 

Well no...but ur 100% right

 

I am annoyed and lashing out where I shouldn't be.

 

I still believe we need to focus more on our domestic issues .....   we need to pressure and ensure that the state organizations are ready to sue sue sue sue 

 

I better go.make a coffee. 

[capt14k 2,052]

Well no...but ur 100% right
 
I am annoyed and lashing out where I shouldn't be.
 
I still believe we need to focus more on our domestic issues .....   we need to pressure and ensure that the state organizations are ready to sue sue sue sue 
 
I better go.make a coffee. 

No chance the Republicans lose the house at worse they have a net loss of and they will gain in the Senate possibly as many as 8. I will put money they lose neither. It's simple math and gerrymandering

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[SW9racer 262]

On 12/11/2017 at 5:03 PM, brucin said:

 

I reside in both houses just at different times of the month.

NJ may try to play fast and loose with what qualifies as a resident but I don't see that flying in court.

 

While we all agree with you, what would a "jury of your peers" say?  Would you bet it all on a sanfran outcome?