BRaptor

I don't know, guys. Don't claim victory, yet. I mean, at first I was all *believers* Then I looked at the news and Now I'm *no, I'm not serious*

Congrats!!!!!! Very pretty name.

I started reading the article you posted, at the link you provided. I stopped reading after the first 2 paragraphs: Yeah, that was a stupid policy, it's been long gone, though.

S&W 500 Performance Center Compensated revolver? This is the hunter version with a sling.

Your scenarios bring up two legitimate functions of the police. 1) Criminal Investigation and Evidence Gathering. 2) Community Caretaking. (no, I'm not kidding). An example of investigating criminal activity would be: Caller calls 911 and says they hear violent screaming and banging and crying along with a woman pleading with a man's voice saying "that's what you deserve for burning my dinner," a woman crying and what sounds like someone being slapped or punched. The caller provides their name, phone number and address and verifies that they're next door to or capable of hearing the disturbance. Police likely have probable cause and exigent circumstances to enter the property without warrant to investigate the male for committing battery against the female. This satisfies the veracity of the tipster, the accuracy of their report and the likelihood that a crime is being committed in the house along with exigent circumstances. An example of (arguable) community caretaking: Police receive a random tip that people are arguing very loudly inside a house at an address. There is some screaming and general disturbance. Police are likely permitted to respond and check in the house to make sure that all occupants are OK. No warrant is likely needed, and no exigent circumstances may be needed, because the police are not, necessarily, investigating a crime, thus, they are outside the 4A. The police may not be there with probable cause that the man was hitting the woman, or vice versa. Rather, they are making sure that everyone is safe, secure and unharmed within the house regardless of who or what was the cause of the disturbance. The two scenarios are a very fine line between community caretaking and crime investigation, and are subject to debate, but this highlights the very fine line that police must walk on a daily basis. One thing I promise, there is no debate that police serve the two purposes of crime investigation and community caretaking and one requires a warrant or a warrant exception while the other does not. Which is another reason why this Indiana domestic case makes bad law (bad facts make bad law). In DV situations, the police are either investigating a crime or doing community caretaking and the line is very narrow. I think the Indiana Supreme Court was trying to make a stand on DV situations in support of the difficult situation that police are in during DV investigations and ended up saying something quite irrational.

That write-up was tough to follow. Yes, the Declaration of Independence uses the word "unailienable." And it may have been the word for that era. But, even according to that website's citation to Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.), "unailienable" is that which cannot be sold or transferred. Which would be like having an interest in a piece of land which is unalienable. My copy of Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.) says "see inalienable" for its entry of "unailienable." Black's also has no entry for "unailienable right," but it does have an entry for "inalienable right." By 1884, "unailienable right" in the Declaration of Independence had been understood (by the US Supreme Court) to mean "inalienable right." Modernly, if one is going to use the word "unailienable," they should probably spell it correctly to avoid people assuming they just misspelled inalienable.

That's the second time I've seen that sign and the second time that it's chapped my a** that they misspelled "inalienable." There is no such thing as an "unaliienable" [sic] right. But, I like the message.

Thank you for notifying me of this. I will be sure to never step foot in, utilize or otherwise patronize a LabCorp facility.

Wow....great meeting. Ray, you did miss a lot. Dude, you missed CAKE!!!!!! Oh, and some fantastic announcements and a great guest speaker. I had to bug out early, so I missed cake, too.

Let's throw another wrench into things. If you're worried about the legality of having the gun in the car while driving from FL or the airport to your house, you can always ship the pistol to yourself via FedEx or UPS overnight. Which means if you can legally purchase a handgun in FL, then you can buy a handgun in FL and ship it to yourself (and you must receive it) in NJ for keeping at your house. There is no ID (commonly called FID or FPID) required for having a firearm in your house or for transporting it to and from the range and using it at the range. I don't care to opine about driving with a gun in your car between FL and NJ or the airport and your home and whether it's legal under the various ridiculous laws.

Congratulations!

I think "invalid" is the incorrect term. I suggest that your father's FID is not "invalid." Rather, the information between his FID and NJ ID doesn't match. I don't know if that has any ramifications for the transfer, though. I think the whole "your NJ driver's license and FID address have to match" is a fallacy perpetuated by FFL's and the NJSP.

Yeah, I hear VA has a great "speed now, find out later" program! But, really, it's all in the name of safety.

That about sums it up. If you can find a 15+ round magazine that doesn't fit into ANY semi-auto, then you're good to go.

Please cite the statute/administrative code that you're relying on for your statement.

On reading the statute, I would think that you wouldn't just have to not have any semi-autos in your possession into which the magazine would fit. Rather, your magazine would have to not fit ANY semi-autos. But, it does appear that the bar on "large capacity magazine" applies only to semi-auto magazines.

You're right, Heller and McDonald were not about carrying. But I don't recall reading anyone's post saying that Heller & McDonald were about carry laws. The two decisions directly address purchase/possession of handguns in the home. However, thier logic and some of the wording in the cases leaves me with an extremely strong idea that carrying is also Constitutionally protected. There are extremely strong arguments that carrying is protected by the Second Amendment. The best argument the states can present is the "Police Power" argument of "general safety." However, states have completely failed to prove that restricting carry of firearms increases safety at all. I, personally, feel that "Police Power" is one of the weakest arguments a state can present against a specifically enumerated right of its citizens. I don't recall a state "Police Power" in the US Const.

I think the reason we didn't hear about this one is because it was a standard appeal of a CCW denial. From what I gather, the guy applied to his PD for a concealed carry permit, got denied, appealed to the Superior Court of NJ, denial affirmed, appealed to NJ Appellate Division, denial affirmed. This decision isn't surprising at all, it's a NJ state court affirming NJ state laws. It should have no impact on the SAF v. Mueller Federal District case that we're following so closely. However, this guy may be on a faster track to get to the Supreme Court of the United States (or at least to ask for certiorari faster than SAF v. Mueller). I think all he has to do, now, is get the NJ Supreme Court to affirm the denial and I think he can then appeal to the US Supreme Court (someone correct me if my procedure is wrong). I doubt they grant this guy cert, though. They wouldn't want such an important question argued by this one guy, alone (yes, I know there are amicus briefs, but he still has to go through oral arguments).

Well, I searched through some sources (NJ AG Guidelines/Opinions, NJ Statutes Annotated, NJ Admin. Code and other sources). I have found that people have been convicted of possession of dum-dum bullets in NJ as recently as 2009!!!! I have found no definition for "dum-dum" bullets in anything authoritative in NJ. I did find a NJ CLE (Continuing Legal Education) publication from 2005 that references a California Appellate case for the definition of "dum-dum" and hollow-point bullets. But that was referring to expert testimony in a California case as a basis for defining these terms. There is possibly a more broad definition of "dum-dum" bullets that would be applicable and might make some sense in terms of the stautory wording. That definition being "any bullet which is designed to expand or fragment upon impact with flesh." That would make hollow-points a form of "dum-dum" bullet. That would also make nearly every other type of "home defense" round a "dum-dum" bullet.

I also wanted to add that these cases show EXACTLY why you cannot speak to the police. In all actuality, I propose that the only difference between the two cases (the one where the guy with the folding knife got off and the one where the domestic violence victim was convicted) is the poor girl TOLD THE POLICE that she armed herself with a box cutter for self-defense. I'd give two-to-one odds that the box-cutter case comes out differently if that girl says nothing to the police or the while on the stand and the state is left with a similar scenario of "the mere presence of a box cutter in her pocket," which she happens to be able to arm herself with when attacked is not enough for a conviction under the statute, because we cannot say that possession of the object at the time was "manifestly inappropriate." As some final painful words from the court, here are some quotes: Thus, the police were not responsive to her calls for help. State v. Kelly, 118 N.J. 370 (1990) Yes, the NJ Supreme Court comes as close as ever to admitting that they are being completely unreasonable. So, as a solution to their unreasonableness, they not only posit that we should demand something that is now and always was impractical (demand that the police be "more responsive"), but their solution is also completely impossible (US Supreme Court has now said the police is are under no obligation to respond/protect you when you call for help). Ain't that a kick in the balls/ovaries?

While Jack's answer may have been a bit harsh, I think he's right in terms of what the FFL will/will not do. I'm 99% sure that if it's a weapon that's banned by name, he will not transfer it to you at all, ever. If it's banned by having too many "evil features," then the FFL may be willing to have it fixed (at your expense) to be NJ compliant. Either way, warn the FFL of what is on the way. Perhaps better, ask the online seller if you can refund/return/exchange or cover reselling costs before they ship it out. Best of luck.

OK, now you forced me to do research. Here is what the courts have said: But, what Recessed Filter said, the courts have also said: In this case, a woman said she was threatened by her ex and "armed" herself with a box cutter. She cut her ex when he attacked her. The court didn't care, [you're not allowed to fight back, apparently.] The court also says: Previous cases have said: Possession of a machete on a fishing vessel may be absolutely fine, but on the street, probably not so much. Possession of a steak knife at the dinner table is ok, but "is sinister when concealed in a car with a BB gun." So, the courts have said it's all circumstantial and depends on whether the judge and/or jury think that, under the circumstances, possession of the "weapon" is "manifestly appropriate."

IANAL, and this is only a deconstruction based on the reading of THIS statute. So, under my reading, your original FID is still valid, even though you lost it, because you still only applied for a replacement. Nothing that I found says your FID becomes void/invalid upon you losing it. The section 2C:58-3© referred to in 2C:58-3(f) enumerates the conditions on which your FID becomes automatically void and you must turn it in within 5 days: I think pertinent to your concerns are Section 2c:43-7.2(d)(2) is aggravated manlsaughter or manslaughter. The "and" is an important word, here. You can't turn in your FID, even if 2C:58-3© as incorporated into 2C:58-3(f) applied, because you lost it. It's impossible. But, it's still valid, unless you're disqualified/voided under 2C:58-3© and (f). Because your FID is still, technically, valid and you haven't said you are disqualified under 2C:58-3© and (f), an application must be made to the Court by one of the enumerated officers, and your FID can only be invalidated after hearing upon notice. My reading of the statute says that you should be issued a replacement FID or change of address as a matter of right and if they want to "deny" your replacement, they must apply to the Superior Court. That would be the only reason for having the distinguishing mark of checking "Replacement" on the application form. Otherwise, you're just re-applying and the process and your rights should be the exact same. It appears clear by the statute that your rights are not the same. It appears that your rights to an FID are greater under a replacement or change of address. Again, IANAL.

I thought I read in the statutes that you could not carry a fixed bladed knife, but you could carry a folder with a blade less than 4 inches "for lawful purposes." The wording of "lawful purposes" is different from NJ's CCW "justifiable need," thus, I would think self-defense would be a lawful purpose. Of course, I haven't read the statute in some time and I haven't read any cases on the issue, but I would venture to guess that self-defense is a lawful purposes for carrying a knife. Of course, we all should know to live by the mantra "Don't talk to the police." (sorry KPD). Collapsible batons are illegal. Stun guns are illegal. Brass knuckles are illegal. "Nun-chuka" are illegal (I think). But feel free to walk around with the hammer of your choice. Carpenter's union is too strong to get those scary things outlawed.

I respectfully disagree. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write a memo on the subject.