Jump to content
45Doll

Only $50 For Handgun Purchase Permits

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, remixer said:

...Then there's this.

You choose to move to a free state with lower taxes and no gun controls. That state is very desirable.... Is it also Desirable to liberals?  ...
 

So your plan is instead of moving to another good state so it can keep its majority, is to stay put / pay high taxes / be miserable, because eventually when the last lib leaves you can flip nj red and overturn all these laws?  That is actually a good idea!  At least you have a better chance of this over scotus taking a case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Living in Florida, I’ll be the first to admit there are trade offs in terms of food, culture, weather, people, and other “only in NJ/NY”comforts.

But, man, you cannot put a price on the freedom and the negative effects of oppression on mental health.  To defend otherwise is like Stockholm syndrome.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, njpilot said:

There are Place she her in Jacksonville and St. Augustine that I have found bagels and pizza on par with NJ. 

As far as hurricanes go, I remember reading a report years ago that more people died from the cold, snow and ice in northeast winters than tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes.

You can survive any hot weather if you have water.  You could live without airconditioning.   If you live where it's cold you can put on a lot of clothes and still be cold. You have to have heat.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 So I am told by a retired LEO that they don’t need a NJ carry permit. They can carry under HR218 if they obtain the card from their department.

So, as always seems to be the case, politicians consider retired LEOs are a superior class of human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, njpilot said:

As far as hurricanes go, I remember reading a report years ago that more people died from the cold, snow and ice in northeast winters than tornadoes, earthquakes or hurricanes.

That very well may be the case... but how many people in hurricanes don’t die, and lose absolutely everything?

Putting a body count is one thing, but all natural disasters cause damage that may or may not be measurable.

Share this post


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

That very well may be the case... but how many people in hurricanes don’t die, and lose absolutely everything?

Putting a body count is one thing, but all natural disasters cause damage that may or may not be measurable.

There are trade offs in everything in life. It's not like we get a hurricane a week down here. It can happen just like a tornado has touched down in the town I grew up in in NJ years ago. 

Share this post


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

There are trade offs in everything in life. It's not like we get a hurricane a week down here. It can happen just like a tornado has touched down in the town I grew up in in NJ years ago. 

Never said one is better than another... just pointed out a different view about using body counts to distinguish the costs of a disaster. I’m sure people that lost their homes in Sandy likely would disagree with your point I quoted earlier. Hell of a lot of pain/anguish can result without death.

To finish this up, I did point out that different areas have different risks. Worrying about tornadoes in NJ is a little different than worrying about them in the Great Plains. Worrying about hurricanes in NJ... even post Sandy, is different than worrying about them in FL. You are right... it’s not a weekly occurrence, but comparing a property in NJ and one in FL... the one in FL has a higher likelihood of being affected by a hurricane (kind of what happens on a peninsula that has the Atlantic on one side and the Gulf on the other). The same is reversed with other things... as most of FL doesn’t need to worry about blizzard conditions.

No place is perfect. FL... is not. NJ... definitely is not. Even ME... is not. But for the individual... if you can adapt to it, it can be perfect for them. FL is not NJ... but it isn’t all it’s chalked up to be. Glad those who are down there enjoy it... but nobody is going to sell me on it. Been across most of that state, with the only two exceptions being the panhandle and the Keys... and nothing really ever made me stop and say, “I should look at living here!”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

 So I am told by a retired LEO that they don’t need a NJ carry permit. They can carry under HR218 if they obtain the card from their department.

So, as always seems to be the case, politicians consider retired LEOs are a superior class of human.

Only if they primarily reside out of state. Otherwise, they need a NJ RPO yearly permit.

Share this post


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

Never said one is better than another... just pointed out a different view about using body counts to distinguish the costs of a disaster. I’m sure people that lost their homes in Sandy likely would disagree with your point I quoted earlier. Hell of a lot of pain/anguish can result without death.

To finish this up, I did point out that different areas have different risks. Worrying about tornadoes in NJ is a little different than worrying about them in the Great Plains. Worrying about hurricanes in NJ... even post Sandy, is different than worrying about them in FL. You are right... it’s not a weekly occurrence, but comparing a property in NJ and one in FL... the one in FL has a higher likelihood of being affected by a hurricane (kind of what happens on a peninsula that has the Atlantic on one side and the Gulf on the other). The same is reversed with other things... as most of FL doesn’t need to worry about blizzard conditions.

No place is perfect. FL... is not. NJ... definitely is not. Even ME... is not. But for the individual... if you can adapt to it, it can be perfect for them. FL is not NJ... but it isn’t all it’s chalked up to be. Glad those who are down there enjoy it... but nobody is going to sell me on it. Been across most of that state, with the only two exceptions being the panhandle and the Keys... and nothing really ever made me stop and say, “I should look at living here!”

Agreed Screwball. There is no perfect place, everyone needs to decide what's best for them. Almost every place in the country has it's own weather hazards or any hazards for that matter. It's up to each of us to decide what matters most to us.

Is FL the perfect place? No, but for me, the weather, lower cost of living and freedoms that NJ didn't afford me make FL a better place, even though I no longer work in my previous occupation. Sure, I miss flying and miss the money I made doing it, but money isn't everything and as they say, it doesn't buy happiness.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

 So I am told by a retired LEO that they don’t need a NJ carry permit. They can carry under HR218 if they obtain the card from their department.

So, as always seems to be the case, politicians consider retired LEOs are a superior class of human.

He told you wrong.  They apply every two years to NJSP.  Although they do have a special "division" or section there handing their issuance They pay and must qualify for each pistol they want to carry.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wreckless said:

Only if they primarily reside out of state. Otherwise, they need a NJ RPO yearly permit.

That's what the NJ AG says.  While state law may be more restrictive than Federal law IMO what the NJ AG has said is contrary to LEOSA.

4 hours ago, BobA said:

He told you wrong.  They apply every two years to NJSP.  Although they do have a special "division" or section there handing their issuance They pay and must qualify for each pistol they want to carry.  

RPO permit is yearly and costs $50.  They have to qualify twice a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/7/2019 at 8:39 PM, USRifle30Cal said:

Armed revolution...comes to mind

Hope not, but it could very well happen.

Just a thought, SCOTUS will be looking at NJ carry case and possible grant of cert (Rogers case).  If the do take the case, I have to imagine our new justice Kavanaugh won't forget about Booker, Harris, et al during his confirmation hearing.  I know as a justice at this level, that stuff should be left in the rear view mirror and bias should be non-existent.  However, human nature/emotion may not be that easy "to let it go".  It could be the "juice" we need to ram it to this NJ political hacks.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

That's what the NJ AG says.  While state law may be more restrictive than Federal law IMO what the NJ AG has said is contrary to LEOSA.

RPO permit is yearly and costs $50.  They have to qualify twice a year.

......and No hollow points I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chic013 said:

Hope not, but it could very well happen.

Just a thought, SCOTUS will be looking at NJ carry case and possible grant of cert (Rogers case).  If the do take the case, I have to imagine our new justice Kavanaugh won't forget about Booker, Harris, et al during his confirmation hearing.  I know as a justice at this level, that stuff should be left in the rear view mirror and bias should be non-existent.  However, human nature/emotion may not be that easy "to let it go".  It could be the "juice" we need to ram it to this NJ political hacks.    

I pray that we never get tot hat point - and there are some on both sides that I think want that confrontation - badly.

 

There is no upside to it and it would be very very very ugly to say the least.

 

*However*, it may just come to pass.

Share this post


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

......and No hollow points I believe.

 You are correct.  No hollow points according to the NJ AG.  LEOSA says retired LE can.

Keep in mind LEOSA starts out using the term, "Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State...".   "Notwithstanding" legally means unless we say it applies.  The only application LEOSA mentions of state law is the state's ability to restrict carry in state owned buildings and on state owned land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2019 at 5:29 AM, Bowling Ball said:

You can't expect the king to tax his men. 

They need them to keep voting,  police are great at voting on local elections. 

On 3/6/2019 at 6:32 AM, USRifle30Cal said:

THAT is essentially the problem, and what theu r trying to achieve and if you do THAT they have won...   

 

Just like the plays from the war agaisnt big tobacco playbook

The scuttlebutt is that is it going to be reduced for leo to 150 and they are crying about that

LEO do not need the CCW, they are covered under HR218, unless they plan on taking an armed SORA job, then they need the permit.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 12:13 PM, BobA said:

He told you wrong.  They apply every two years to NJSP.  Although they do have a special "division" or section there handing their issuance They pay and must qualify for each pistol they want to carry.  

I know typically, or maybe always, they have applied for and qualified for,  NJ carry permit.  But arey required to get the NJ carry permit given the existence of HR218? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2019 at 10:03 AM, wreckless said:

Only if they primarily reside out of state. Otherwise, they need a NJ RPO yearly permit.

Thanks.  So HR218 allows them to conceal carry where they are not eligible for a resident permit.  Aka... where they do not live full time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

Thanks.  So HR218 allows them to conceal carry where they are not eligible for a resident permit.  Aka... where they do not live full time.

On 3/6/2019 at 6:32 AM, USRifle30Cal said:

THAT is essentially the problem, and what theu r trying to achieve and if you do THAT they have won...   

 

Just like the plays from the war agaisnt big tobacco playbook

The scuttlebutt is that is it going to be reduced for leo to 150 and they are crying about that

I'm curious about what retired officers have been arrested and had this tested in court? 

HR218 indicates "notwithstanding any State or Local Laws".  I've seen a couple of cases where NY and CA both lost their cases. 

I also read the infamous 'letter" from the NJSP where it stated you only need the state ID if you plan on working, but only need HR218 if you plan on carrying personally.  The letter was retracted.  

I suspect NJ would NOT pursue a charge against a retired officer who has not complied with their permitting process.  If they loose it would look bad for the State and set a rock solid precedent.  

 

Shown Here:
Public Law No: 108-277 (07/22/2004)

(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on June 23, 2004. The summary of that version is repeated here.)

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 - Amends the Federal criminal code to authorize a qualified law enforcement officer carrying photographic governmental agency identification to carry a concealed firearm, notwithstanding any State or local law. Declares that this provision shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that: (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Defines "qualified law enforcement officer" as: (1) a current governmental agency law enforcement officer who is authorized to carry a firearm, who is not the subject of disciplinary action, who meets agency standards which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm, and who is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and (2) a retired law enforcement officer who retired in good standing from public agency service, who was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for at least 15 years, who has a nonforfeitable right to agency retirement benefits, who has met the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms during the most recent 12-month period, and who is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love when they pull this stuff.

Goal 1 “ we need to get tax revinue to pay our unfunded pension liabilities and this tax will help that”

Goal 2 “but we also want to help discourage purchase of these items so we will make the tax onerous as well”

These are two mutually exclusive goals that are in opposition to each other. If you cut down on the sale of a good by adding a fee or tax to make it more expensive, then you gather less taxes and fees so you can’t meet goal 1. If you meet goal 1 then obviously sales were so high that you didn’t meet goal 2. I suppose they look at either scenario as a win/win since they meet one of their goals either way but it’s still a failure if they state both as a goal on a bill or proposal.

Basic logic fail...

-Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven’t read anyone mention the potential for the fee increases to drive some folks to illegal gun purchases? Under the current system they can track background checks and firearms ownership (FIDs and P2Ps provide that).

It seems to me that increasing the price of legal transactions, will lead to an increase in illegal transactions - no background checks, no notification to police (works fine for criminals).

Already, folks chance crossing state lines for ciggarettes, fireworks, avoid sales tax, etc., what’s to say you want to buy a firearm from a relative or a friend at a range....the transfer is going to cost more because the FFL has to charge more to pay his fees, the P2P is now 2500% higher than previous....economically there’s good motivation there to take a chance of not getting caught....

Seems to me, this Governor is even dumber than given credit for....

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

I know typically, or maybe always, they have applied for and qualified for,  NJ carry permit.  But arey required to get the NJ carry permit given the existence of HR218? 

I know of retired LEOs who were licensed and working as private investigators who were denied carry permits before the existence of the Retired Police Officer permit.  Judge felt the type of work they were doing didn't provide a need for them to have a carry permit.

Before the RPO permit being a retired LEO didn't automatically get you a carry permit in NJ.  It does in some states like NY.

14 hours ago, Kevin125 said:

Thanks.  So HR218 allows them to conceal carry where they are not eligible for a resident permit.  Aka... where they do not live full time.

LEOSA (HR218) has nothing to do with state carry permits.  The NJ AG is the one who says if you are a retired LEO living in NJ you need the state RPO permit.  The RPO permit in NJ came out in 1997.  LEOSA came out in 2004.

IANAL but I find it comical the NJ AG feels he can pick and choose what parts of a Federal law he wants to recognize.  He recognizes carry under LEOSA for retired LEOs that aren't NJ residents but not those who live in NJ?  That sounds like a 14A violation right there.

The few test cases I've seen with had to do mostly with the issue if the person carrying fit the LEOSA definition of being a LEO.  IIRC there was an active duty Coastie arrested carrying on Long Island who beat the rap because his job fit the LEOSA definition of LEO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ktd1597 said:

JimB1, there is only ONE reason for what Murphy is doing.  Eradicate gun ownership in NJ, any which way he can, hook or crook.  

Yep but I want them to say it... then it becomes very clear in the lawsuit :)

-Jim

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...