Jump to content
Redlines

Oklahoma going permit less

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

I thought NJ DID issue concealed carry permits, but made it impossible to get one...

Probably because of this line in the application:

Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a
need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey. If this application is employment-related, then your employer must supply this letter.
List the reason for this application:
 
That is the deciding factor. Who gets to decide if it's an appropriate reason or need?
 

Share this post


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

Probably because of this line in the application:

Each person applying for a Permit to Carry a Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a
need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey. If this application is employment-related, then your employer must supply this letter.
List the reason for this application:
 
That is the deciding factor. Who gets to decide if it's an appropriate reason or need?
 

Could I just include a copy of the constitution now with the 2nd amendment highlighted. I would like to see how that goes over. I would probably be put on a watch list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Redlines said:

Could I just include a copy of the constitution now with the 2nd amendment highlighted. I would like to see how that goes over. I would probably be put on a watch list.

I can't argue with that, sounds reasonable to me.

But this is the Communist state of NJ, so I don't think THEY remember what the constitution actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sniper said:

But this is the Communist state of NJ, so I don't think THEY remember what the constitution actually is.

At first, I thought the Dems didn't want law abiding citizens CCWing because too many of their constituents would end up pushing daises as a result of good people defending themselves.  But really, what does it matter to the dem party. their constituents will still vote whether they are dead or alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question: does this mean that in these 15 states doing this that an American Citizen can carry there permitless as a right without being a resident of the state?  Are the rights respected by these states only recognized to their residents on not visitors to their state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BobA said:

Question: does this mean that in these 15 states doing this that an American Citizen can carry there permitless as a right without being a resident of the state?  Are the rights respected by these states only recognized to their residents on not visitors to their state?

Good question, especially in regards to FOPA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, BobA said:

Question: does this mean that in these 15 states doing this that an American Citizen can carry there permitless as a right without being a resident of the state?  Are the rights respected by these states only recognized to their residents on not visitors to their state?

159:6 License to Carry.  III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a prohibition on the unlicensed transport or carry of a firearm in a vehicle, or on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, by a resident, nonresident, or alien if that individual is not otherwise prohibited by statute from possessing a firearm in the state of New Hampshire. 

In NH anyone can carry resident or not without a permit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, fishnut said:

159:6 License to Carry.  III. The availability of a license to carry a loaded pistol or revolver under this section or under any other provision of law shall not be construed to impose a prohibition on the unlicensed transport or carry of a firearm in a vehicle, or on or about one’s person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, by a resident, nonresident, or alien if that individual is not otherwise prohibited by statute from possessing a firearm in the state of New Hampshire. 

In NH anyone can carry resident or not without a permit. 

Ok, I see that.  Then why does NH require a non-resident carry permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BobA said:

Ok, I see that.  Then why does NH require a non-resident carry permit?

simplest answer: money

think about it... their NR permit is $100 and honors in lots of states, and they issue it to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 minutes ago, BobA said:

Ok, I see that.  Then why does NH require a non-resident carry permit?

They dont require it.  But its offered for both residents and non residents.  And with it, you can enjoy whatever reciprocity they have with other states.  it's the only reason you would need or want a permit in NH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sota said:

simplest answer: money

think about it... their NR permit is $100 and honors in lots of states, and they issue it to anyone.

Do they benefit from citizens of states like NJ etc because they offer their permit to non-residents .. of course they do.  Thats just smart financial sense. But if they didnt offer one to their own residents they would be hurting their own residents, as they would in most cases be locked into their home state.  It just makes sense to have a resident permit that would then be honored by reciprocity agreements outside the state.  if someone has no intention of traveling outside the state and or doesn't want to carry their gun outside the state then they have no reason to get one.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BobA said:

Ok, I see that.  Then why does NH require a non-resident carry permit?

Reciprocity with other states. Residents also have to get a permit to legally carry in other non constitutional carry states. 

Share this post


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

Question: does this mean that in these 15 states doing this that an American Citizen can carry there permitless as a right without being a resident of the state?  Are the rights respected by these states only recognized to their residents on not visitors to their state?

 

1 minute ago, fishnut said:

Reciprocity with other states. Residents also have to get a permit to legally carry in other non constitutional carry states. 

So, if I understand what you're saying correctly, if I visit Oklahoma, New Hampshire or another constitutional carry state I still need a non-resident permit?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arizona has Constitutional Carry. Any non-prohibited resident or nonresident can open or conceal carry without a permit, except in certain locations. The state offers CWPs for anyone, which is good in a number of states, and exempts one from a BGC when buying a firearm from an AZ Dealer.

3 minutes ago, BobA said:

 

So, if I understand what you're saying correctly, if I visit Oklahoma, New Hampshire or another constitutional carry state I still need a non-resident permit?   

No. Anyone can carry without a permit.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, BobA said:

Ok, I see that.  Then why does NH require a non-resident carry permit?

This also answers your last post, but the mobile site it too finicky for me to try and fit it in.

I really never looked into the restrictions on NH carry laws within NH (might have been in the state for about an hour, driving to/from ME), but with ME, since I looked it up for off duty carry... constitutional carry has restrictions that are not in place with permit carry. One off the top of my head are State and National Parks. There was also one that had to do with bow hunting... where if you want a handgun, you have to have a valid permit.

I’d say to also look over any restrictions with constitutional carry, and see if they apply to you. If they do, might want to get the permit... or just follow the law and not carry in those instances. Having a permit will never hurt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PK90 said:

Arizona has Constitutional Carry. Any non-prohibited resident or nonresident can open or conceal carry without a permit, except in certain locations. The state offers CWPs for anyone, which is good in a number of states, and exempts one from a BGC when buying a firearm from an AZ Dealer.

No. Anyone can carry without a permit.

Ok, then 1st: New Hampshire owes my $100.00 because they just cashed my check 3 days ago. But 2nd: Does anyone know how the reciprocity thing between states work in that case?  If the free state resident visits another requiring ID to respect the reciprocity will merely their driver's license be enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Screwball said:

This also answers your last post, but the mobile site it too finicky for me to try and fit it in.

I really never looked into the restrictions on NH carry laws within NH (might have been in the state for about an hour, driving to/from ME), but with ME, since I looked it up for off duty carry... constitutional carry has restrictions that are not in place with permit carry. One off the top of my head are State and National Parks. There was also one that had to do with bow hunting... where if you want a handgun, you have to have a valid permit.

I’d say to also look over any restrictions with constitutional carry, and see if they apply to you. If they do, might want to get the permit... or just follow the law and not carry in those instances. Having a permit will never hurt you.

If your a Federal LEO and carrying off duty within the guidelines of your agency what the state says really doesn't matter.

You are carrying under Federal authority.  The Federal Government is not subject to state or local jurisdiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Screwball said:

I’d say to also look over any restrictions with constitutional carry, and see if they apply to you. If they do, might want to get the permit... or just follow the law and not carry in those instances. Having a permit will never hurt you.

Oh I do.  I have found that the best way is to email the AG directly.  I did this for travel rules and got very polite and professional responses.  I travel with the printed emails in the glove box for use in case I get stopped or accused of an illegal deviation. Fortunately this hasn't happened yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BobA said:

Ok, then 1st: New Hampshire owes my $100.00 because they just cashed my check 3 days ago. But 2nd: Does anyone know how the reciprocity thing between states work in that case?  If the free state resident visits another requiring ID to respect the reciprocity will merely their driver's license be 

What they require depends on the state.

Share this post


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

If your a Federal LEO and carrying off duty within the guidelines of your agency what the state says really doesn't matter.

You are carrying under Federal authority.  The Federal Government is not subject to state or local jurisdiction.

But don't they still hold true to restrictions to certain areas? Schools, and other non-carry areas? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, GRIZ said:

What they require depends on the state.

Ok (and none of this is sarcasm, it's truly based on ignorance and confusion) that could mean that since a free state doesn't issue permits then in those state requiring such from your state of residence in order to apply reciprocity wouldn't get one because you would not have one.  Kind of a catch 22?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A helpful resource in case anyone is not aware is a site called https://www.usacarry.com  You can plug in any permits, resident or non resident that you may have and see where you are good to carry. Can also dig into individual states and see where carry rules apply per state, like courthouses , bars etc.  very useful site.

Always a little bit behind on changes so dont expect them to be up to the day accurate if something changes.

 

2019-02-10_11-29-38.jpg

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GRIZ said:

If your a Federal LEO and carrying off duty within the guidelines of your agency what the state says really doesn't matter.

You are carrying under Federal authority.  The Federal Government is not subject to state or local jurisdiction.

Already did check... good with issued weapon. If carrying a personally owned firearm, reverts to jurisdiction’s laws. When I mentioned getting my permit in a constitutional carry state, was told I’d be good... but as mentioned, there are specific instances where the permit would be beneficial.

And that is where it sits at the moment. The next issued weapon is supposed to have at least one, possibly two, alternatives... which would be allowed for duty use, but personally purchased. From what I was told, there is hope that may somehow be extended to backup weapons... but the person who was explaining it said that he isn’t holding his breathe on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, BobA said:

But don't they still hold true to restrictions to certain areas? Schools, and other non-carry areas? 

Generally no when it comes to state laws.  If you're a Federal LEO carrying off duty under the guidelines of your agency your restrictions are  are governed by your agency policy is.

Federal agencies don't acquiesce to state laws.   That's maintaining sovereignty of the Federal Government.

A Federal LEO is better off carrying off duty under their agency's guidelines rather than any state law for reasons I'll discuss in my next post in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 11:45 AM, Screwball said:

Already did check... good with issued weapon. If carrying a personally owned firearm, reverts to jurisdiction’s laws. When I mentioned getting my permit in a constitutional carry state, was told I’d be good... but as mentioned, there are specific instances where the permit would be beneficial.

And that is where it sits at the moment. The next issued weapon is supposed to have at least one, possibly two, alternatives... which would be allowed for duty use, but personally purchased. From what I was told, there is hope that may somehow be extended to backup weapons... but the person who was explaining it said that he isn’t holding his breathe on that.

Yes, CBP is limited to issued weapon. I believe that was still true for the inspectors before DHS was created.  Except for a short period special agents could always carry personally owned firearms as long as it was approved and they qualified with it.

Firearms policies have always stated something to the effect it doesn't preclude off duty carry in accordance with state or local laws.

The only benefit I can see for getting a state carry permit is if your agency says you must carry ABC and you want to carry XYZ.  If you're a Federal LEO ( or any LEO for that matter)  you're much better off carrying off duty under your LE authority than any state permit.  If you get into a legitimate shooting situation off duty or gun situation you'll find yourself on your own if you're carrying on the authority of a state permit.  If you're carrying under your Federal LEO authority (which as a CBP Officer comes from 19 USC 1589) and in compliance with their firearms policy and use of force policy you'll get backing from the agency and most likely whatever union you wind up joining.

I've seen this backing extend to the US Attorney pulling the case out of a state court and having charges dismissed.  I've also seen someone have to stand trial for manslaughter in a state court for killing someone with an unauthorized weapon.

I mentioned unions and they are part of the problem with CBP when it comes to firearms issues.  You've got 3 unions representing CBP Officers.   Any change in policy has to be run by them.  When they permitted inspectors off duty carry it was negotiated to issue firearms only and no carry anywhere alcohol was served.  Special Agents, not having a union to deal with, could carry specific personally owned firearms and carry anywhere as long as they weren't drinking alcohol.

I'd rethink those "benefits" of carrying off duty on a state permit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the heads up. I had the opportunity to pick the brains of a few BPAs and CBPOs, and even one who had a great deal of knowledge on both firearm training as well as what was going on with the solicitation for the new sidearm(s) (couldn’t say what was submitted, for obvious reasons; still surprised no company had released anything saying they submitted X to them). Did ask specifics regarding the subject, and browsed the Use of Force Policy. Based majority of my post off his explanation.

Whatever the outcome, it will be a question I’ll likely ask in the upcoming months and go from there. When I head up to ME in April, will have a firearm... which will be locked in the trunk during work. Will carry it as legally allowed per constitutional carry (I am trying to fit finding a house in these two weeks, hopefully to get it setup to close somewhere in August... God willing). Doubt I’ll be hunting or going on a hike in a park during that time, so should be ok.

Once I find a house, finish training, and get everything else changed over (driver’s license and FFL-03... might get the ball rolling on suppressors, but likely will wait for the following year so I can un-NJ most of my guns)... I’m still going for the permit. Like I said, it never will hurt you to have it. I’m up there at least to April 2022 (incentive requires that, or have to pay back the money paid out), so I’m sure I will utilize the permit abilities over constitutional carry at least once in that time period.

In regards to their issue sidearm, I really want to see what they are going to decide on. Hopefully testing gets done, which be done quicker if the government doesn’t shut down again (not to mention the BS those guys/girls are facing; per CBP’s Hiring Center, shutdown should effect my start date... unless it goes on through mid-March). It sounds from the Request that they had the P320 and Glock in their sights... I’d love to see Beretta win a large contract like that. All depends on what the options are, but if I’m carrying a full-size P320 with RMR, I think it would be better to carry something smaller than not carry it at all times (off-duty... must be concealed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • NJGF members in chat (2)



  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • For the way it burst, it's not a real squib. It would have to be an underloaded cartridge that stopped basically right at the muzzle. This is unlikley but possible.  My guess is the following:  There's probably something wrong with the metal of the barrel. They got a bad batch of stainless with impurities or weird crystal structures or something. Much like SA did when they had the spate of stainless slides snapping off at the slide cut on their 1911s.  It is also not uncommon for the machining for a lever action with a tube magazine to negatively impact the boar as far as accuracy on a good sample, and this is often due to the machining changing the bore diameter or roundness.  Combine that with bum steel and the fact the angle on the dovetail is a stress riser, and one of two things happened.  1) It was a bad enough combination that it the bullets hammering into the bore constriction were able to basically split the end of the barrel open.  2) Lots of soft lead ammo was being shot, and the  bore restriction at the cut was effectively scraping off some lead and causing a build up until #1 happened.  #2 could in theory happen badly enough to kill a gun without bad steel being involved, but usually you stop shooting first and try to figure out why your gun is do horribly inaccurate.   
    • 12ga. Flash bangs .........don't know if they are Jersey Legal...used in Alaska quite a bit to move bears.
    • What article are you reading? At no point does he argue 300 million gun owners. He points out there are about 250 million adults in the us and the at least number for how many guns per capita are in circulation.  The biggest number he poses as actual resistance is the veteran population at about 20 million.  I'd argue that the scenario is very wrong as a whole, but more on that at the end.   The estimates are that the number of gun owners in the US are 100 million. The number that owns them is smaller than that.  The only ownership stat he gins up is that to get all the semi-autos, you would have to raid 9 million households. This is based on his estimate of number of semi-auto guns out there (which is probably conservative for the reason he states), and his math of netting 3 prohibited guns per raid. Which Is a number that may be high or low. I really can't say. LOTS of people tend to own way more than one semi auto rifle. On the other hand, how good would the data mining be to target things successfully? My guess is that the number of raids would have to be much higher because you would have WAY less than 100% accuracy on semi auto ownership.    This is where I think a whole bunch of people stop thinking rationally, and the author's nod to the IRA is apt, and it becomes important to keep in mind that the number of raids is seriously, seriously optimistic.  His math is a bit off. Doing some rounding to whole numbers, it's really 869 raids per team, and thus 869 raids per officer to hit that optimistic number. Assuming no attrition, casualties, etc.  There's ~100 million gun owners.  The question is how many of them do you get?  There's also another ~200 million non gun owners. the question is what will they put up with before they see the government as a problem?  Because the reality is you are likely going to have to kick down WAY more than 9 million doors to get them all. Even at 9 million, that's basically one in every 13 homes.  And that is if they ONLY ban semi auto rifles and things work out beyond optimistically. Realistically, even with high quality data mining, face to face sales, 80% receivers, etc will mean going to a number of households larger than that, AND so far the stupidity seems to want to include semi auto pistols. So... WAY. WAYYYYY more households than that.  But lets be kind and say double it.  That means kicking in the door of about 1 in 5 households. That will generate opinions amongst the populace.  And he already suggested how it would be organized. It'll be the guys you know and trust. You ahve a handful of buddies you have known forever? One of them jsut got capped by a SWAT team last weekend and you are getting together after the funeral for a drink and really pissed off? Maybe you get to talking about how some fuckers need to pay?  How many more people when they hear rumors of things that sound like they might be talking about you will give you a ring to let you know something might be happening but without putting any real skin in the game?  This is how it happens at the very least. More organized than that? Look at how many gangs we have in the US. They have their own governing documents and rules and such. They are arguably competing forms of government in some locations.  As a concept, the havock the IRA caused was with WAY less guns and with a peak of at best about 5000 active trouble makers. A lot more sympathetic ears and people willing to be low commitment on the fringe, but 5000 really problematic ones.    I do think he is optimistic about the retribution on the ruling class. I suspect it would look much more like enough cops get killed that the cops collect their pay checks while knowing the cops just don't go into that part of town for anything real.      I don't totally disagree with you. I have said before and I will say again that all politicians are scum. they don't care about anything but gathering power and influence and not wanting to work to retain it.  If a ban ever did come about, there would be NO intention of enforcing it thoroughly. Just like there has been zero attempt made to really enforce ANY gun control law to date thoroughly outside of already regulated entities.  Whenever something happens, nothing effective is suggested to prevent crime. What is suggested is  something that would make it harder to mint new gun owners and to stifle the existing social structures of gun owners.  Why? Because to the mind of a politician they see it as destroying a voting block that opposes them FOREVER. They will likely remain opposed, but opposed and unorganized and to diffuse into other voting blocks. They don't do anything about the crime because crime creates fear, and fear can be used to gather votes. Enforcement will be arbitrary and periodic so they can keep the former gon owning voting block afraid to stand up on the subject, and keep the anti-gun voting block intact and in fear of the evil criminal gun owners. Because if you actually solved the "problem" of gun owners, the anti-gunners could vote for whoever now. If you actually fixed the criminal problem, your voters who want law and order out of fear could go vote based on other priorities.  The only real point of conversations like this are to point out how people are being lied to, and how those who give a crap need to focus on the other strategies and put some effort into them.  IMO the real hazard for CW2.0 surrounding guns is that we DO get a half assed ban, and some politician thinks because they said it is so, it is truly so. And decides to do something else incredibly stupid that lets them find out how many guns they didn't actually confiscate. 
    • Remember, it only takes 3% to produce "change".. What could 3,000,000 "focused" individuals accomplish in the country? Averaged out, that would be 60,000 per state. Could 60,000 pissed off gun owners take over control of NJ? How about half that number?
    • Yes to be considered a farm and get the farmland accessment it must be 5 acres or more and you have to make over certian amount of money from the farm. But you dont need to own a farm to own livestock
×

Important Information