Dewhitewolf

Hey all, I don't know if anyone brought this up before, but there's a firearm training facility in Pittsgrove, NJ (within an hour of Atlantic City). http://harborsiteusana.com/index.php If anyone has been there or knows about it, please fill us all in on what you think.

There was a case of a guy who was imprisoned because of possession of a rifle that could hold 17 rounds: State v. Pelleteri, 294 N.J. Super. 330 (1996). You can read about it here: http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/decisions ... 5.opn.html The appellate court affirmed his conviction, even though he was unaware that his rifle could hold more than 15 rounds. At the bottom of the court's opinion, the court said, "When dealing with guns, the citizen acts at his peril." In other words, you are guilty until proven innocent. I do not believe that the courts will differentiate between semi-auto and lever action rifles with regard to fixed magazine capacity. My suggestion, have the tubular magazine modified by a gunsmith to a 15 round limit.

The NJ Supreme Court took away the authority of police to conduct consent searches in a 5-0 decision in State v. Carty (2002). Police in NJ can no longer perform so-called "consent searches." It would seem to me that asking what is in your trunk would constitute a consent search. You can read about it here: http://www.erowid.org/freedom/courts/st ... ent1.shtml New Jersey Supreme Court Blocks Suspicionless Searches During Traffic Stops Commentary on: Appellate Decision NJ State v. SJ Carty by Earth Mar 9, 2002 Appellate Decision: State v. Carty 332 N.J. Super. 200 (App. Div. 2000) [Decided March 4, 2002] Full Decision Text AP Story In a 5-0 Decision on March 4, 2002, the New Jersey Supreme Court continued its nation-leading protection against police searches. The court decided, with 4 judges signing the primary decision and 1 writing a concurrence, that even with written consent police were not allowed to search the person or vehicle of someone stopped for a traffic violation without "reasonable, articulable suspicion" unrelated to the traffic violation for which the vehicle was stopped. The New Jersey Court ruled on the basis of the New Jersey State Constitution and thus it is not reviewable by the federal Supreme Court. NJ has long had some of the most protective constitutional law regarding police searches during traffic stops. Until this ruling, the New Jersey police were required by the courts to have each person actually sign a consent document in order to allow traffic-stop searches. The consent documents were quite strongly worded, in an attempt to inform citizens that they had the right to refuse searches. The text of the consent document included: "'Consent' that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429. I have knowingly and voluntarily given my consent to the search described above. I have been advised by [the investigating officer] and fully understand that I have the right to refuse giving my consent to search. I have been further advised that I may withdraw my consent at any time during the search. But the court ruled that even this unusually strong attempt to foster informed consent had failed to provide the protection required under the New Jersey Constitution's Article I, paragraph 7. The Court mentions a study which found that "nearly ninety-five percent of detained motorists granted a law enforcement officer's request for consent to search." They use this as evidence that even with the consent form, people do not feel free to say no to the 'request' by police officers. The NJ Court writes: The cumulative effect has been that we no longer have confidence that a consent to search under Johnson truly can be voluntary or otherwise reasonable without modifying the Johnson standard. "'Consent' that is the product of official intimidation or harassment is not consent at all. Citizens do not forfeit their constitutional rights when they are coerced to comply with a request that they would prefer to refuse." Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 438, 111 S. Ct. 2382, 2388, 115 L. Ed.2d 389, (1991). What can be synthesized from a review of scholarly articles, cases from around the country, and the empirical data referred to in this opinion, is that despite use of the first-tell-then-ask rule or the voluntary and knowing standard adopted in Johnson [68 N.J. 349 (1975)], consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops are either not voluntary because people feel compelled to consent for various reasons, or are not reasonable because of the detention associated with obtaining and executing the consent search. Stated differently, hindsight has taught us that the Johnson standard has not been effective in protecting our citizens' interest against unreasonable intrusions when it comes to suspicionless consent searches following valid motor vehicle stops. The New Jersey Court affirmed the lower appellate court which held "in the absence of an articulable suspicion, the request to search to which the driver assented offended the State Constitution." [Carty, supra, 332 N.J. Super. at 202] The Supreme Court included the appellate's reasoning: Requests to consent to an automobile search are obviously, as a matter of common experience, likely to be complied with. Consequently, baseless requests almost inevitably result in a search. It is our view that travelers on our State highways should not be subject to the harassment, embarrassment[,] and inconvenience of an automobile search following a routine traffic stop unless the officer has at least an articulable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of illegal activity. The New Jersey Supreme Court goes on to be extremely clear about what they're saying and explicitly deny the use of consent-based searches without there being some evidence of a crime: We agree with the Appellate Division that consent searches following a lawful stop of a motor vehicle should not be deemed valid under Johnson unless there is reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that an errant motorist or passenger has engaged in, or is about to engage in, criminal activity. In other words, we are expanding the Johnson two-part constitutional standard and holding that unless there is a reasonable and articulable basis beyond the initial valid motor vehicle stop to continue the detention after completion of the valid traffic stop, any further detention to effectuate a consent search is unconstitutional. A suspicionless consent search shall be deemed unconstitutional whether it preceded or followed completion of the lawful traffic stop. The requirement of reasonable and articulable suspicion is derived from our State Constitution and serves to validate the continued detention associated with the search. It also serves the prophylactic purpose of preventing the police from turning a routine traffic stop into a fishing expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the stop. [NJ State vs Courty] The only disagreement between the justices is on the somewhat technical grounds of whether the decision is required by the New Jersey State Constitution or whether it should be adopted as a prophylactic [protective] rule of law in order to prevent abuses by police. The majority agreed that it should be considered a Constitutional issue, but the J Stein wrote in a concurring opinion that: < "I would impose precisely the same condition as does the Court, but would not rely on the State Constitution as its source. Rather, based on the virtually uncontradicted evidence that some police officers in New Jersey frequently have abused the power to request consents to search motor vehicles after routine traffic stops _ and that motorists routinely accede to those requests _ I would hold that the requirement of reasonable and articulable suspicion that a search will reveal evidence of a crime is simply a prophylactic rule of law adopted by this Court for the purpose of preventing abuses of the power of law enforcement officers to request motorists to consent to searches of their motor vehicles." Another heartening point in the decision is that the Court makes it clear that simply acting nervous and giving "furtive glances" at other occupants of the vehicle cannot be the sole grounds on which an officer bases his suspicion for a search: "under the New Jersey Constitution, the appearance of nervousness is not sufficient grounds for the reasonable and articulable suspicion necessary to extend the scope of a detention beyond the reason for the original stop." Simply being unsettled when pulled over by the police cannot be grounds for a search. An important note, which the concurrence makes very clear, is that this decision applies only to vehicle stops and to no other area of law. As a side note, the Court also makes clear that this ruling does not change the status of searches related to roadblocks which might be required for public safety (drunk driving road blocks) or national security (terrorism-related roadblocks). "Therefore, the holding in the present case is limited in that it pertains to consent searches pursuant to a stop for a traffic infraction." The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision is also notable in the collection of 4th Amendment law citations it provides. It is an excellent resource to use to research other similar case law and includes a wide variety of citations in New Jersey law, other state law, and federal 4th Amendment decisions. We hope that other state courts will consider adopting similar restrictions on the so called "consent searches". The case also opens the issue of how much New Jersey police are allowed to question someone outside of the bounds of the traffic violation for which they were stopped. While the decision does not directly address this, since New Jersey police are no longer allowed to ask otherwise law-abiding motorists for permission to search their car and the NJ Supreme Court has banned 'fishing expeditions' by police during traffic stops, it seems likely that a reasonable reading of this decision includes substantially limiting the New Jersey police's power to ask questions unrelated to the stop. "[This new standard] prevent the police from turning routine traffic stops into a fishing expedition for criminal activity unrelated to the lawful stop." [NJ State vs SJ Carty, March 4 2002] Decision by: Coleman J, Chief Justice Poritz DT, Long V, & Zazzali JR with Stein J concurring.

You can also visit www.usacarry.com

Mine (Mt. Olive Township) took almost 8 months.

Florida issues a "Concealed Weapon or Firearm License." Under FLorida law, that means this license allows you to carry anything that is a weapon under the state code, as long as you can conceal it. However, when carrying in other states under a FL license, you are limited to handguns. That is probably the reason they'll accept any firearm course--the main thing they're looking for is that you know how to safely handle a firearm. Please tell me you did not spend $300 for a pistol class just for this permit!

Any firearm course satisfies Florida's requirement for a carry license. It does not need to be pistol specific. Click on this link for a complete list (this information comes with your application): Scroll down to page 3, refer to question 6. http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/applic ... ctions.pdf Oddly enough, FL does not accept LEO ID as proof of firearm training. They will accept a certificate from the police academy, though (the organization I belong to verified this with Florida over the phone). I don't see why an LEO would want a FL license anyway, when LEOSA gives them nationwide right to carry.

I also took basic pistol through NJFA about two years ago. Our class started at 8 in the morning and went till at least 6pm (with a break for lunch). Something is wrong if your class was only 5 hours. Safe handling has to do with the three rules of gun safety: --keep the gun pointed in a safe direction; --keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot; --keep the gun unloaded until ready to use I have also heard about discharges happening during cleaning; this is because of too many people not making sure the gun is unloaded. Safe handling at the range simply means the gun stays pointed downrange until unloaded and cased. How to "best" store guns at home is a matter of preference. I keep mine in a safe. Others use cabinets, trigger locks, or lockable cases. Keeping a gun ready for home defense is not part of NRA Basic Pistol. For that, look for a class called NRA Personal Protection in the Home.

I was thinking that a "straw purchase" was purchasing a firearm for someone who is not eligible to purchase it on his own. Example, buying a handgun and then selling it to someone under 21 would be a straw purchase. However, before the ban on selling to under 21 year olds, it was legal for a person 18 and older to purchase a handgun from any private party, as long as he had a purchase permit. The purchase permit was his proof that he was eligible under state law to purchase a handgun (from anyone except a dealer). Sorry if I caused any confusion.

It used to be that someone under 21 could buy a handgun from a private individual, but still needed a purchase permit (so it was not a straw purchase). However, the person had to be 18, have a FID, and a purchase permit. That was stopped sometime during the Whitman administration. Whitman passed a law prohibiting all handgun sales in NJ to anyone under 21. Now the only time anyone under 21 can receive a handgun is by inheritance after death. I don't know about "borrowing," but I know that Ray's had signs posted that all handgun shooters must be 21 or over.

Glad to meet you. I'm in Morris County, too.

When I bought my SigSauer from Caso's, I got it at a price lower than anywhere else I went. Add to that half the sales tax, I ended up saving about $70. I know it's not a heck of a lot, but money is still money.

One of the differences is that a security carry permit has a "work restricted" stamp placed on it. Another difference is that retired LEO's must requalify and reapply every six months, whereas security and everyone else must do so every two years. The individual carrying the gun must apply for the carry permit--merely working security does not give him the right to carry. So yes, any armed security guard working off premises must have a permit.

It is a bad idea to apply if you know you will be rejected. It will at the very least delay any future carry permits you apply for with any other state. Even if you already have one in another state, you could have trouble renewing. Generally, NJ only issues a "permit to carry a handgun" to armed security personnel, qualified retired LEO's, and to those who can successfully demonstrate, to both your local police chief and to the superior court judge, a "justifiable need." Such "needs" are usually limited to those who deal with a lot of cash, and may need to transport that cash to the bank. There is a provision in the law that allows people to carry a firearm at their place of business (as long as they don't carry off the premises). That is why many gun store owners and employees are able to carry while at the store. Before doing that at your place of business, consult an attorney about the legalities and the liabilities.

Other forums that I visit: New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (organization committed to protecting your right to protect yourself): www.njcsd.org The Firing Line (general forum about guns and gun issues): www.thefiringline.com USA Carry (specific to open and concealed carry) www.usacarry.com

I am familiar with the litigation involving Front Sight. As a life member, I have received many documents from the District Court, as well as from the plaintiffs and defendants, inquiring if other life members had the same experiences as the plaintiffs. The court acknowledged that no additional plaintiffs came forward after that fishing expedition. Just to backtrack, Front Sight intended to build resort hotels and vacation homes on the Front Sight property. Investors (plaintiffs) got impatient with the development process after the contractors pulled out last minute. That's when the litigation started; investors wanted their money refunded, and even got the court to issue an injunction to prevent Front Sight from continuing with development. I have been to Front Sight. I can honestly say that they well exceeded my expectations.

In wintertime, I snowboard! I just recently took a two day rifle course. Now I'm waiting for them to make an olympic sport where the athletes snowboard with a rifle!

You might not want to go in June--you will be outdoors most of the time, in the middle of the Nevada desert. Pack a lunch with you each day, as there is no cafeteria or anything there, and there is no place nearby. Be sure to bring a water bottle--they supply water, but it's pumped from underground wells. Use sunblock, bring a hat with a brim, and sunglasses. You may use your own gun, or rent one of theirs. You may also bring ammo, but factory only (no reloads, and NO steel cased, such as Wolf). You will also need a belt holster for your strong side (no shoulder holsters, cross draw holsters, or thigh holsters). Any holster is okay, as long as the trigger is covered. The facility is about an hour outside of Vegas, so get up early if you plan on staying in Vegas. You are expected to be at class on time each day (7 am the first day, 8 am the remaining days). You will be taught presentation from the holster, shots to the chest, and shots to the head as well. You will be taught using weaver stance and kneeling position. Tactical shooting simulator session will be on day 3. The night shoot is also on day 3--you will need a flashlight with an on/off switch (I used a Surefire tactical light). If you have not already done so, visit their website at www.frontsight.com, read about them, and order their FREE DVD. Then you will see what makes Front Sight stand out from all the rest of the shooting schools.

I started shooting with a friend when I was 22. Around that time I bought my first gun, Beretta 92 FS. I spent several years "guessing" my way on target shooting. I eventually bought a SigSauer P226 and a H&K USP 45. After about 6 years of shooting, I finally took NRA Basic Pistol at NJ Firearms Academy (I needed it to get my FL carry license anyway). About 2 years ago, I flew out to Front Sight, just outside Las Vegas, NV. I took their 4 day defensive handgun course. What an experience that was! There I learned to draw from a concealed holster and fire twice into the chest in under 2 seconds! We also had a night shooting session and a training opportunity in a tactical simulator house. Just recently I took a "rifle weekend" course through NJFA. Day 1 was NRA Basic Rifle, day 2 was level 2 tactical rifle.

9mm: Beretta 92fs SigSauer P226 Glock 17 .45 Heckler & Koch USP

How's that for coincidence--you're trying to get into NJ from Colorado, and I'm trying to leave NJ to go to Colorado! Some things to keep in mind if you decide to bring guns here--generally, any handgun you own should be legal here. You do NOT need to register them when you come here. However, I would recommend applying for a NJ Firearm ID card once you get here, just for good measure (this proves that you are eligible to own firearms in NJ). Don't even bother with CCW. NJ bans all carry, open and concealed, without a permit. Carry permits are only granted to retired police, armed security, and those who can demonstrate to a superior court judge a "justifiable need." NJ does NOT recognize permits from other states. I suggest that you leave any magazines over 15 rounds with someone outside NJ. They are illegal here, to purchase and to possess. As far as rifles and shotguns, generally they are legal for you to bring here provided they are not on the NJ assault weapons ban list (this is different than the federal, now expired, assault weapons ban). For additional information, check out www.anjrpc.org. These are the two prominent pro-gun organizations in NJ. Both of these sites will bring to light the reality you are about to face. For specific legal information, contact www.evannappen.com (attorney specializing in firearms law). Do not make the mistake of asking NJ police for advice, because they have a tendency to make stuff up as they go along, in an effort to arrest people for honest mistakes.

Ray's was the only place I went to go shooting, except for the times I was taking courses at NJ Firearms Academy. We got to go to a firing range in Bayonne, and another in North Bergen (I think). Other than that, I have only been to PA, and once to Nevada. I'm sorry to see Ray's go. It may not have been the best facility, but it was all I had. Maybe it's time somebody opened up a new range!

Hello all, I just found out about this site today. Glad to be a part of it. Hopefully this will help us unite gun owners in NJ and, who knows, maybe get some drastic changes in the legislation in our favor.