Bob B

Correct: The most recent version is on the NJSP website: http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf You can also navigate your way to 15:54 1.2 On Michie's Legal Resources: http://www.michie.com/newjersey/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp= It is true, however, that the definition of substantially identical does not appear in the statute, only the administrative code.

I attached the flyer. $100 for rifles and shotguns. $150 for handguns Operation Lifesaver 2 revised flyer.pdf

Happy birthday!

Got your email. I sent you the one form I have for your township. If you could just let me know if that is the one you were talking about. Thanks!

Thank you. Sending PM now.

Hmmm. I wonder if they are inconsistent with the forms they hand out.

Well, I was going to explain, but Anthony has put this one to bed quickly.

Thank you. You're a gentleman.

Update: Our court date was today. I attended along with our attorney, Rick Gutman. This was oral arguments only, no witnesses. In short, the judge thought the State Police's assertion regarding the need for secrecy was inadequate, however, instead of ruling against them, he gave them 45 days to file a more detailed explanation of why they consider the Guide confidential. We will be back in court sometime around late August, early September. I'll refrain from speculating about what that means, exactly. It's good that he didn't like their explanation. It's bad that he gave them another chance. Whether or not he likes their new explanation remains to be seen.

My understanding is that Bayonne has some additional requirements, when applying for a FID or PPP, specifically: 1. A letter stating that you know that firearms should be used safely. 2. A Blanket waiver with language specifying that it can be used at any time and for any purpose and will be kept on file. 3. Employer verification form. If there is anyone that can get any or all of these forms (and any others if I missed any) and either post them, or email them to me, it would be very helpful for phase II of Operation Establish Compliance. If you do not live in Bayonne, but live in another town in Hudson County that has any additional requirements, those forms would be helpful also. Thank you.

Okay, that's funny. The coversheet answers the question. This is a possibility.

Great! Thank you. Bringing them to the meeting would be perfect. Did you happen to ask them if their additional form was mandatory?

I just checked and we do not have anything from Ocean City. If you could get that for us, that would be great. You could simply ask them if it is mandatory or not. If they say no, then there would be no need to turn in the app without the form. If they say yes, then this could become one of the more compelling possibilities.

I agree that notifying a person's employer has got to stop. There will be a second lawsuit. It might not be this particular issue, but I would like to see the form so we can at least consider it. I sent yours to our attorney earlier today. We are considering everything that has been submitted very carefully.

Do you have a copy of the letter?

Somehow, I missed that you posted this. Thank you.

That's the spirit!

Pelleteri, Revell and Aitken. Longstanding. Not endless. But, your point is valid.

^^^ I agree with all of that, Dan. I think we all agree that it is presumptively legal to bring your handgun to PA (unloaded, in the trunk, until over the boarder, in order to legally carry in accordance with PA law), we all just fear NJ's long standing track record of arresting and prosecuting first and asking questions later, Revell, being an example. Hmmm, being coerced from engaging in a fundamental right through the use of fear and intimidation under the color of law... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the definition of oppression.

Added a PDF of the court's opinion to the OP. It's worth reading. The court ruled that a standard very similar to strict scrutiny should apply. That's good news.

http://www.examiner....v-gun-range-ban Those of you who know the history of CRRC know how important that statement is. Edit: Attaching the Court's Opinion Ezell v Chicago 9C0O43EC.pdf

I hear what you're saying Dan, but the OP ignores other legal concepts in order to reach his conclusion. That quote may communicate that one Senator's idea of the original intent of the law, but it does not define it's final or complete application. That quote is not a legal standard. As an example, I would point to Staples v. U.S. where SCOTUS rules that in order to be guilty of a firearms related crime, mens rea is a required component of being found guilty. In other words, you must have the intent to commit a crime. In addition, the legal definition of "interstate" would come into play. There may be a long history of case law that clearly defines exactly when an interstate activity begins. The OP's research is incomplete on that point. Imagine the implications in other areas, such as interstate commerce, or insurance, or contract law if the OP's proposed definition does not comport with a long standing legal definition. There also may be legal history addressing how a state may or may not "accidentally" regulate an activity outside its borders. This is ignored as well. There is also a legal standard called the "reasonable man test." Did the person take "reasonable care" when engaging in the activity? This is ignored. There is the fact that under the OP's interpretation, leaving NJ under such circumstances is illegal, but returning is perfectly legal. Could a reasonable person expect that to be the case? I'm sure there are other legal concepts that would also apply that are not accounted for. It is dangerous for someone to reach such a conclusion and then announce it as though it is complete legal research and a valid legal standard. The fact is, to our knowledge, after decades of the possibility, and surely thousands upon thousands of people engaging in the activity over that period of time, no one has ever been convicted of a crime under such circumstances and I'm sure that we can all agree that no reasonable person could expect to come to the OP's conclusion after reading 926A. In fact, it is the OP's contention that the conclusion is unreasonable, hence his frustration. The one thing I agree with is that there is a modicum of doubt, because there is no test case to give absolute surety one way or the other. In the absence of that, I have to go with the reasonableness standard. Of course, I wouldn't fault anyone for playing it safe. It's the proclamation of an unqualified person based on incomplete research that bothers me, precisely because it creates a standard that does not currently exist. The laws are already ridiculously restrictive. Do we have to add to the problem by creating new ones ourselves? Have we become that conditioned? It's embarrassing. The OP is building a nice new cage. I choose not to climb in. The more people that reject his conclusion, the better off we will be.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that it is not legal but you would not likely get caught. My argument is that transporting an unloaded handgun, locked in your trunk, going from your residence in NJ (where you can legally possess and carry) to PA (where you can legally possess and carry) appears to be perfectly legal, based on 926A and it is highly unlikely that the perfect storm of stupidity would happen where you would end up as a test case. With Aitken there was a legitimate question of whether or not he was moving at the time, which would impact whether the transportation of the handguns was intrastate or interstate, intrastate only being legal by exemption. Ryan was traveling to NY, a place where he could not legally possess and carry a handgun. Both of those cases had legitimate questions of the legality of the person's actions. In this scenario, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you can legally possess and carry at the origin and destination. That is what makes this scenario different.

We have more than conjecture and speculation. We have the law itself: http://www.law.corne...26---A000-.html I wouldn't want to be the defendant in any test case, but, I also wouldn't want to be the prosecutor that would try something that stupid. I mean, think about it -- as a prosecutor, you would really have to be dumber than a bag of rocks to attempt to prosecute someone with no criminal intent, no criminal history, with a FID card and a permit to carry, who is leaving the state (or returning) with his legally purchased and legally owned gun unloaded and locked in the trunk. There would have to be a perfect storm of stupidity. First you have to do something to get pulled over. Then you have to make the mistake of allowing the LEO to search your vehicle. Then the LEO has to be stupid enough to arrest you after verifying that you have an FID and a valid out of state carry permit. And, lastly, the prosecutor has to be stupid enough to pursue the case. To put it in perspective, the chances of getting killed in a car accident are 5,000 to 1, while the chances of that perfect storm of stupidity actually happening are probably greater than 100,000 to 1. If you are that worried, you probably shouldn't even get in your car.