ianargent

Well, it seemed they whinged "It is constitutional" every paragraph. That got annoying real quick.

NJ to gun rights: Get Bent

Thanks Malsua, that was it. Real people > google

Like I said, I saw an editorial by Nappen where he mentioned a judge being prosecuted for illegal transfer in his living room...

He's the most visible of a host of people victimized by cops misinterpreting or aggressively interpreting the law. There was that guy who was traveling under FOPA who got busted in Newark Airport, for one.

Clearly the cops did give a damn for someone who was in an exception zone - see Brian Aitken. A cop who is feeling cranky will arrest and let the prosecutor settle the matter... The reason I mentioned the FID is that the law forbids possession of a longarm unless the possessor has obtained a FID, except under the exemptions. So, yes, a FID is relevant to possession of a longarm. "The New Jersey Supreme Court has a bias against guns and gun owners. In a famous decision they said, 'When it comes to firearms, the citizen acts at his own peril.'" Until that changes, assume the law is the enemy and plan accordingly...

I was eliding. In this case, it wouldn't be the possession that was illegal per se (as you point out, it is an exemption to possess at home); it's the (temporary) transfer. I expect that this wouldn't come up much, due to not being under observation by a cop, but... I seriously wasn't expecting the judge to tell the jury to ignore the "moving" exemption prior to the Aitken case, either.

It didn't help. I want to say it was an editorial primarily on the stupidity of the NJ AWB, but it's been a while

No legal way to transfer it, no legal way to possess a firearm in NJ without transfer. I wish I could find the Nappen editorial where he went over this - but I can't craft a search that doesn't get buried under Aitken results.

FID doesn't help you if it's a handgun. And I doubt it will stop the arrest for a longarm. And even so, a motivated prosecutor could nail you for illegal transfer...

Welcome to NJ firearms laws

In this state?

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html and follow the relevant links

NJ is not a community-property state; the emphasized above is likely incorrect. (I looked that up when I was investigating firearms purchasing). NJ law does not contemplate ownership of a firearm by more than one individual (though the law claims that a firearm in a car is possessed by all in the car unless on the person of someone, in which case it is presumed to be possessed by that person - so don't give a ride to your friend the prohibited person while you have a gun in the car...)

Temporary transfers arre legal at a range as long as the owner of the firearm is on hand (maybe in the same room - I don't recall of the top of my head). There are some other conditions under which temporary transfers are legal, off the top of my head I don't recall them. Technically, it's illegal for me to touch my wife's handgun off the range, even if she's in the same room. I remember running across a quote from Evan Nappen about a guy who was nailed for illegal transfer for allowing someone else to handle a firearm at home (want to say the victim of the law was a judge - but I can't dig up the anecdote right now).

This was the part I was saying is a good thing for gun owners if the SAF suit passes. As it stands, the permit laws for NJ are middle-of-the-road as fas as restrictions, except that the judge has his say and can only issue for "justifiable need." If that is struck down, and NJ is forced to issue permits; the Federal judge just has to stricke down that clause, leaving the rest intact. It's not Constitutional Carry, but it's better than, say, MA or MD; arguably better than DE. No restrictions as to place except "on the grounds of an educational institution", for example. The legislature would have ot pass BRAND NEW laws restricting carry, in the face of a Governor who has merely ruled out running for President in 2012. The federal judge doesnt' have to say that "your CCW law is entirely unconstitutional, toss it and start again" to comply with McDonald, all he has to do is say "the jusitifable need clause is unconstitutional, it's gone," or, "Self-defense is a justifiable need." It would probably be necessary to toss discretion about time/place/manner and weapon carried as exist under the current law, but I can see a judge striking that as well. All the federal judge has to do is erase about 2 sentences from 2C:58 Namely, 2C:58-4c "...and has a justifiable need to carry a handgun," likewise the same caluse in 2C:58-4d, and "The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes such handguns may be carried" must be struck. I would prefer that {The chief police offier] shall also determine and record a complete description of each handgun the applicant intends to carry." be struck from 2C:58-4c as pointless, but other states have the same requirement. I'm cautiously optimistic here. Take an eraser to those lines and enforce the time limits (must issue within 30/60 days) and we're no worse than any other state that requires specifying carry weapon and taking a training course. I'm not thrilled by the "3 reputable persons/good moral behavior" clause, but PA has the second (it's how Philly lifts the permits of people they don't like). It's a journey of a thousand miles to get to Contitutional Carry in NJ, lets start with single steps.

That kind of bureaucratic delay would be plating with fire, particularly as the law specifies a time limit. Judges may have absolute immunity, but the cops only have qualified immunity.

Thanks - I meant the NJ government, and the anti-gun forces therein. Your correction is appreciated; though there's plenty of bipartisan freedom-haters in the state legislature. It's a great thing for Free NJ that there are no additional firewalls.

NJ has a very LARGE problem if the "justifiable need" section is pulled out. There is NO other firewall to keep people from carrying. The rest of the law is relatively unobjectionable if the permit is "shall-issue" and the judge's discretion as to what and where is pulled - both of which can be done by a judge (and ought to be) without destroying the law. NJ would therefore have to pass new laws to clamp down. Better hope this goes through while Christie is still Governor and he's still got national ambitions for 2016 or 2020...

Any limited-interest hobby store has its grognards

They'll have to pass new laws. NJ has a permit law, the judge can strike down the "justifiable need" sections and leave the rest alone. A follow-up suit might be necessary to make the state comply with their own laws concerning timelines, I suppose

Couple notes - there's at least two towns that force households to own firearms (with an exception for conscientious objectors). One is Kennesaw GA, I forget the other. Non-federal governments absolutely could do this under their police powers, the same way they can force someone to purchase car insurance (again, assuming an opt-out for conscientious objectors, such as quakers). The Federal government has no police powers (outside of federal property anyway - DC, forts, armories, and other "needful buildings"). But, under the militia powers, they could probably do so. Were the feds to do so I would expect they would provide for those who canot afford to arm themselves; or at least offer "at-cost" sales of an M-4/M-16, M-9, and ammo for same, not to mention the rest of the kit for a line infantryman... Anyway, the proposal as such isn't going anywhere (though amusing).

Well, if the federal judge reads McDonald and the bit where it says SCOTUS held in Heller that the 2A protects the right to keep AND bear .. and is incorporated against the states, we might have something.

Both of which qualifications are subjective - and therefore should have no place in criminal law

The threshold for arrest is "probable cause". In NJ, it is probable that a weapon is being transported illegally, since by definition possession of arms is illegal without the paperwork. Which, incidentally, ought to mean that showing a FID should prevent you from being arrested for possessing an unloaded longarm, since the caluse say illegal without having first obtained a FID... I don't like the law, but I like time in jail less. Solution is as noted. Don't talkt ot he cops beyond the minimum necessary, and don't consent to a search. Incidentally, in NJ, "a police officer who wishes to conduct a consent search must have reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that evidence of criminal wrongdoing will be found in the vehicle before seeking consent for the search." State v. Elders (Lawyers USA No. 9937055) New Jersey Supreme Court No. A-42-06. July 30, 2007. (Emphasis mine). That was the first hit I found, but it apparently goes back to State vs. Carty - http://www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com/CM/Custom/State-v.asp - "The Supreme Court, Coleman, J., held that: (1) as a matter of first impression, for a consent to search a motor vehicle and its occupants to be valid under the New Jersey Constitution, law enforcement personnel must have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal wrongdoing, beyond the initial valid motor vehicle stop, prior to seeking consent to search, and (2) State trooper's testimony that driver and passenger had “appeared to be nervous” did not provide reasonable articulable suspicion for requesting consent to search." Which is rather stronger protection than in some other states.