Bob B

So did I.

It goes to the Senate. It would easily pass on its own, but then would be vetoed by the President. Expect the Senate to attempt to attach it to some other piece of legislation that cannot be vetoed. To do that they will need 60 votes, which will be very close.

They are replaying yesterday's debate right now (11:30am). Same link: http://www.c-span.or...e-Video/C-SPAN/

Bloomberg is referring to this Bill: S436 Fix Gun Checks.pdf It sounds nice, fix the gun checks so that bad guys can't buy guns, but it is really much more sinister than that. Educational institutions and all government agencies would be mandated to turn over information about you that they think might make you a prohibited person. So, if a counselor at your school ever thought you might be depressed, you could be banned from firearms ownership for life, or Obama-care administrators would be forced to turn over your mental health records to NICS. By discouraging people from seeking help, he may be causing the very problem that he says he is trying to fix. Additionally, the definition of "drug addicted" and "adjudicated mentally defective" take on much broader meaning to include if you're ever convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia (not the drug) or if merely a school official thought you may have below average intelligence or might be a harm to yourself or others. So, now school officials can decide whether or not you can own a gun for the rest of your life. Lastly, all gun transfers would have to go through the police or dealers with a limit of $15 for the transfer. Temporary transfers would only be able to take place in certain places, like your home and the range. There's no provision for training outside of a range. There is an exemption for those who are licensed to purchase, possess or carry a firearm, but the transfer must take place where the license is from, so your FL carry permit won't exempt you in NJ. It appears that the PPP and FID would exempt you in NJ, but the FID would not exempt you in PA if you wanted to buy a shotgun there, for example. So, say goodbye to unlicensed transfers, because no dealer would ever do it for $15. All the transfers that go through dealers in NJ would stop because of the cap on the fee. There are a couple of places in the Bill that say the DOJ can't keep records, but goes on to say that dealers would have to keep records for life as prescribed by the DOJ. This Bill is designed to make as many people as possible into prohibited persons and to stop unlicensed transfers altogether. One thing I have noticed about Bloomberg is he operates on one side of the equation only, the side of more restrictions. He never suggests making it easier for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights. For example, it is illegal to possess a handgun in NY without a permit and you cannot get a permit as a non-resident. Therefore, I can't take my handgun with me to NY to take my Dad shooting. He does nothing to protect the good guys, and lies about the implications of his proposed legislation. He truly is a despicable person.

That's the way I read it. Of course, if it passes and non-residents can carry in NJ, but residents cannot, there would be an "equal protection under the law" challenge.

Yup.

Anyone who claims that NJ has a functional castle doctrine is simply mistaken. Without criminal and civil immunity, whatever the law says is meaningless.

I like the idea. Your thinking of 2C:58-3. If I remember correctly, the forms are not specified, only that the forms created by the Superintendent must be used (something like that). The last sentence of paragraph (f) contains the "no additional conditions or requirements" language. If you are able to package it nicely, I'll make sure we put it on the website somehow. Thanks for the help!

^ Let's hope that is his motivation, to avoid being overturned on appeal.

We objected to the fourth request for a certification. Judge Hurd overruled our objection.

Well, we were supposed to have our third court date today, but at the last minute, the judge called for a conference call with both attorneys. During the call he, again, told Mr. Rizzo, that his certifications were insufficient and told him to do another one. This is now the fourth time that the judge is giving the NJSP attorney the opportunity to provide some evidence that any part of the guide would cause harm if released. The first two certifications were insufficient and the third request was ignored. The court date was rescheduled for Nov 18th.

I don't think Gura is handling this case. I believe he is only listed because the SAF filed an Amicus Brief. He is listed under "other" not "petitioner." http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/10-11212.htm

The judge is going to say in his opinion that Justifiable Need is fine because the 2nd Amendment does not extend outside the home. The appeal will ask the question "Does the 2A extend outside the home?" The answer, eventually (think SCOTUS), has to be yes, although it may be to a lesser degree (lower standard of scrutiny) than the core right of self-defense in the home that judges believe is what Heller says. I don't think Intermediate Scrutiny will be acceptable to SCOTUS, so they will have to come up with some kind of enhanced scrutiny that isn't quite Strict Scrutiny, but is better than Intermediate to apply to RKBA questions outside of the home. Today was a necessary step. Frustrating, yes, but necessary. It's going to take SCOTUS to come up with the "how." Until then, District Courts are going to refuse to extend RKBA outside the threshold. Once SCOTUS decides how to treat RKBA outside of the home, either by granting cert to Masciendaro or this case or some other case, our case will be remanded back to the District Court with instructions to start over and use the new-fangled scrutiny method on Justifiable Need. Hopefully, at that point, Justifiable Need falls or at least must include self-defense. Patience.

I attended this morning. Although no decision was rendered, it was absolutely clear within the first 10 seconds that Judge Walls is going to rule against the plaintiffs. He was adamant in his opinion that the Second Amendment does not apply outside of the home, that the State has an interest in regulating firearms possession outside of the home for public safety and he was perfectly okay with the concept of Justifiable Need. He could not be convinced otherwise. It truly was over before it even began. I am sure that the SAF will appeal. This was not the level where they expected to win.

There is no spoon, but there is definitely a guide.

Unknown.

Okay, we are going back to court on Nov 4th.

Thank you, Harry. After Bryan's comment, I was beginning to worry. I forgot about the elephant story. It's probably been thirty years since I thought about that one.

The notification states that the guide is being "hand carried." I have this vision of Tim Conway's old man character from the Carol Burnett show trying to get through security at the Court House. (Am I dating myself?)

We have just been notified that the guide has been sent to the judge.

If you find a butcher that is also a check station, it will save you a trip.

As of Thursday, Mr. Rizzo, Deputy Attorney General and the third attorney for the defense, had not submitted the guide to the Judge yet. Our attorney called him and he promised to do so "in a day or two." Our attorney will follow up again on Monday.

In the OP he states: Later he states: If you consider both statements, it sounds like "on his way home" means where he is from, but now he is a resident of FL. That's what it sounds like to me.

Don't forget, his destination was NY, where you cannot be in possession of a handgun without a permit and you can't get a permit as a non-resident. The handgun was not legal at the destination, therefore, FOPA does not apply. If he was charged with four "felonies," it is possible that they were: Unlawful possession of a handgun Possession of a handgun for an unlawful purpose Possession of high capacity magazines Possession of hollow-nose bullets

If you can't get the court documents, please let us know as much of the following as possible: Name of the case Plaintiffs full name Name of the Judge County Docket Number ...we will then look it up.