Bob B

Right, but which statute(s) say that?

It's in the very first post, but here it is: So, unless you have a permit to carry, or there is a specific exemption for it, it's illegal. There's no exemption for carrying to your neighbor's property and even if there was, you would have to carry in accordance with 2C:39-6g.

Carrying a handgun on your property is an exemption: ...although you can still be charged with possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, so I wouldn't advise bringing attention to yourself. Walking to your neighbor's house open carrying a handgun - definitely illegal. Walking to Wawa open carrying a handgun - definitely illegal. Please tell your friend to read 2C:39-5 and 2C:39-6 before he ends up in jail.

The law in NJ prohibits both open and concealed carry. There's no distinction. Just a friendly reminder to get us back on track. The subject is preventing the next Brian Aitken. Brian was in possession of unloaded handguns, HP's and high cap mags, locked in the trunk. Becoming shall issue is a good point, because if Brian had a carry permit, he would definitely not have been arrested for the handgun charge. But, he still may have been/would have been arrested for the HP's and high cap mags. In addition, most people moving to NJ from another state wont get the carry permit in advance. We are talking about unloaded and locked in the trunk. I don't think we should set the bar where it would take a carry permit to transport unloaded and locked in the trunk. So shall issue, to me, is desirable and an improvement, but does not prevent the next Brian in all cases. That is why I keep getting drawn back to the same conclusion - there must be a distinction between the law-abiding and a criminal as far as the class of the offense. I am wondering how to make that distinction. In my mind, there are two ways (I definitely want to hear other ideas if they are out there). 1. FID or Permit to Carry = law-abiding citizen, no infraction. No FID or Permit to Carry = 2nd class crime (talking about possession of unloaded handgun, locked in the trunk). This creates a well defined line, but doesn't cover law-abiding citizens who don't have an FID card. or... 2. Not subject to the disabilities set forth in 2C:58-3c = law-abiding, no infraction or slap on the wrist. Subject to the disabilities set forth in 2C:58-3c = 2nd class crime. This covers what 1 above does not. or 3. Both 1 and 2. *Note 1: I think it is critical that we maintain the stiff penalty for the criminal or we wont have buy in from prosecutors and LE, which means we wont have support of the legislature. That's one flaw with Nappan's proposal. He wants to go back to class 3 crime for unlawful possession of a handgun. This will meet stiff resistance. *Note 2: In order to use 2 above, the subjective, arbitrary "not in the interest of public safety, health and welfare" clause must be removed from 2C:58-3C or specifically excluded in the new language distinguishing the law-abiding from criminals.

That's disappointing. That doesn't address the exemption/transportation issue at all and it does not distinguish between the law-abiding and the criminals. It keeps the prosecutor in a position to abuse the law and makes you need a lawyer to negotiate PTI for you. And, the legislature is not going to go for reducing handgun possession back to a 3rd class crime. See requirements added to 1st post. Whatever is done needs to protect the law-abiding (if you are law-abiding, transporting your guns unloaded, locked in the trunk for any lawful purpose is not a crime regardless of FID or Permit to Carry) while maintaining stiff penalties for criminals (if you are a criminal or have criminal intent and you possess a handgun, you go to jail for a long time). That's what I distill out of everything that has been posted so far as the two "must haves" in order to both prevent the next Brian Aitken and keep support from legislators that want the stiff penalties for criminals.

Definitely not a requirement now.

Here's a good one. Name a law that allows you to possess a loaded rifle or shotgun. Hmmmm. Is there an exemption for that?

That's a good point. I'm going to add that, but worded a bit differently.

Good safety tip! This seems to be a common thread. Thanks for the ideas. Keep 'em coming.

NJ2AS would like to hear your suggestions on how the firearm possession laws should be changed to prevent the next Brian Aitken. Let's start with the current scheme. Requirements (working list): 1. A law-abiding citizen must be able to transport any firearm unloaded, locked in the trunk, for any lawful purpose. 2. The law must protect the law-abiding while maintaining stiff penalties for criminals. 3. Must get rid of or somehow render harmless the "directly to and from the range" and "only those stops that are reasonably necessary under the circumstances" clauses.

I am going to start a thread asking for input as to how the law should be changed to prevent another Brian Aitken. There are some folks on NJGF who really have a good grasp on NJ firearm possession laws. I'm very interested to hear what you think.

The way I read it, you can go to your friends house, purchase the handgun and drive home, but your friend can't drive to your house to sell you the gun.

Will do.

Unless you are an NJ2AS member, then it's only $25 to GFH and $0 to NJ2AS (and you can join NJ2AS on the spot for $25 if you are not already a member).

I think the author was trying to say that you can't be in possession of a handgun without a carry permit unless you are within the exemptions, which is true. On another note, NJ2AS is mentioned in the article! Good job Frank!

This is not firearms related, but I do believe that it is very important. Recently, Attorney General Paula Dow submitted a Petition for Rulemaking to change certain components of the New Jersey Administrative Code in order to add additional exceptions to the Open Public Records Act. If a record is exempt from OPRA, it does not have to be released to the public upon request. OPRA requests are extremely important. They are NJ's version of the Freedom Of Information Act. This is how we are able to verify that government is behaving properly. The News Release is here: http://www.nj.gov/oa...01108-prn1.html The full petition can be read here: http://www.nj.gov/oa...OAG-13_1E-3.pdf This means that, if approved, the AG's proposed exemptions would allow government agencies to deny requests to release public records if they are listed. This is a summary of the AG's proposed exemptions: 1. Standard Operating Procedures and training materials; 2. Records concerning background investigations or evaluations for public employment, appointment to public office or licensing, whether open, closed or inactive; 3. Records which may reveal the identity of a confidential informant, a confidential source, a citizen informant, or an agency's surveillance, security or investigative techniques or procedures or undercover personnel; 4. Records relating to or which form the basis of discipline, discharge, promotion, transfer, employee performance, employee evaluation or other related activities, whether open, closed or inactive, except for the final agency determination; 5. That portion of any inventory of State and local emergency resources compiled and any policies or plans compiled by an agency pertaining to the mobilization, deployment, or tactical operations involved in responding to emergencies, including employee emergency contact information, which, if disclosed, would substantially interfere with the State's ability to protect and defend the State and its citizens against acts of sabotage or terrorism, or which, if disclosed, would materially increase the risk or consequences of potential acts of terrorism or sabotage; 6. Records pertaining to the collective negotiations process; and 7. The duty assignment of an individual law enforcement officer or any personally identifiable information that may reveal or lead to information that may reveal such duty assignment, including, but not limited to, overtime data pertaining to an individual law enforcement officer. There is a 60 day period where the public may submit comments. Anyone who wishes to comment on these proposed exceptions to public disclosure may send a written comment, prior to December 31, 2010, to the following address, in reference to Proposal Number: PRN 2010-269. Philip H. Hopkins, Jr., Deputy Attorney General Administrative Practice Officer Department of Law and Public Safety Office of the Attorney General P. O. Box 081 Trenton, NJ 08625-0081 ...or email him at [email protected] Attorney Richard Gutman, who concentrates in OPRA related legislation, submitted comments which can be read here: http://ogtf.lpcnj.or...pD//Hopkins.pdf I will be submitting my own comments. In addition, I am contemplating sending a letter to Governor Christie expressing my disappointment and my concern. Essentially, if these exceptions pass, no one would be able to check what government employees do, how they perform, if they are being disciplined properly, if they are receiving excessive pay or overtime, if contract negotiations are being done in good faith and/or contain unreasonable provisions, and more. Any citizen may submit a Petition for Rules Change. It is beyond my comprehension why the Attorney General would be requesting such exceptions. An AG should be concerned with government remaining open and accountable, rather than closed and secretive. In addition, some the proposed exceptions directly contradict provisions in OPRA. Something that the AG must surely be aware of.

Nice summary!

Thank you everyone. I am compiling the information. Please keep it coming. Looks like we have a pretty good team forming.

Hey Joe, Do you mind PMing that to me again. When NJGF went down, I lost all of the PM's relating to this thread. I have not heard from anything from them via phone or email. Thanks! Bob

What I meant was, as part of Brian's appeal, his attorney is sure to challenge the constitutionality of NJ's laws which start off by making all handguns illegal and then carve out narrow exemptions. How can the law start off that way if the RKBA is a substantive due process right, as SCOTUS has ruled? That approach will probably work for the handguns and HP's. The high cap mag issue will likely require a different strategy, such as making the case that they are in common use (Miller), and that the restriction is "overly broad" or "under-inclusive" (strict scrutiny), or argue that it is not a "time, place, manner" restriction, it is a ban on everything over 15 rounds (intermediate scrutiny). That will be a tougher sell.

In my opinion, that is a big plus. That means that the appeal will likely go forward and NJ handgun, HP and high cap mag laws can be challenged and may fall, at least in part. There will then be two lawsuits, one civil, backed by the SAF, and one criminal, backed by the NRA challenging NJ's gun law scheme. I just hope that Brian and the NRA don't back down.

Without publicizing the details, NJ2AS is looking for individuals, gun clubs and gun retailers in District 35 to help with a project. District 35 - (Bergen and Passaic) Glen Rock, Haledon, Hawthorne, North Haledon, Paterson, Prospect Park, Totowa If you are interested, please chime in and send me a PM. I will fill you in on the basics of the project off line. If you know of any gun clubs and/or retailers in D-35 please post them. If you posted in the previous thread, please post again as that thread was lost when the forum was down. Thanks for your help!

http://trentonian.co...wmode=fullstory

Order is attached, or read it here: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?app=members&module=messaging&section=send&do=replyForm&topicID=52776 commutation(2).pdf (Click "view" to rotate)

Congratulations Brian! Enjoy your Christmas with your family.