JackDaWack

You can't be charged with Tresspassing until you physically (and personally) tell someone they are not allowed on the property. Cops don't assume signage means anything, unless you lawfully have to read something before entering property and sign you did, think waivers and such. I've literally tried to have people arrested for trespassing and the cops were apologetic they could do nothing until after they were severed notices of no-tresspass. On what grounds would he arrest you just for being in a school zone? So an entire department came to the conclusion that school zones, which aren't school property, will be treated as such? Nice.

2 inch radius at 200 yards is a 4" diameter circle. Wouldn't that be roughly a 2moa spread? A second point would be that civilian xm193 is labeled for NATO spec not necessarily meeting accuracy requirements, and often it's classified as factory "rejects" as not meeting spec for one reason or another but still safe to shoot. I would be shocked to see anyone getting sub moa out of a standard AR barrel using what amounts to plinking ammo. I may have been thinking of m855 for the lesser accurate moa, regardless.

Federal law is funky. I believe it applies to illegal firearms that have to had crossed state lines. It was challenged not shortly after being passed into law.

It's a matter of getting one of the 2a groups to challenge the law, unless you want to go that route. Right now, it might be low on their list with the current challenges taking place in NJ.

NJ law will eventually be challenged, probably after they pass more restrictions.

The campus in general could be considered a sensitive area, just like the campus of a high school with athletic fields etc... I'm speaking in regards to your personal vehicle, parked in a lot. Of course it's NJ, that's why I said it would be a primary challenge.

As a matter of efficiency, we should probably make sure the PD approved the permit before calling the court.

I think it could be argued that the parking lot is public property, and not considered a sensitive area... that should be covered under Bruen. I think this is going to be a primary challenge moving forward as it would apply to any restricted property, like court houses and government buildings.

So there is a a bunch of preset spots for the red dot to appear based on range?

What do you plan on hunting, and where? What range will you need? Anyone's experience is only as good as your needs.

I'm pretty sure they are all digital, as they modify the position of the reticle. I've seen companies like ATN offer these options at a decent price, but the picture quality seems to be severely lacking. Beyond the range finder, which can be useful, I don't see the need for automatic zeroing if you're proficient at adjusting a scope for long range shooting.

Wtf are they subjected to currently? Nothing?

It very well could be. All I see in the current order is acknowledgement of SCOTUS vacating their original judgment and remanding for additional review. It's my understanding they have to review the lower courts ruling again. Aka the process has to start over from scratch at the appellate level, and be remanded to the lower court AFTER affirming an error occurred. This would be a judgment from a Judge, not like the Order that see here which is signed by a Clerk.

"Legal reasoning" is a pretty broad usage. It's is not typical for a remand to occur because a different case set a new precendent.. the lower courts "legal reasoning" is only being challenged because in light of NEW precedent. A typical remanded case, ones we see all the time are ussually due to a procedural error by the court. The remanding court shouldn't approve or disapprove of any judgement when an error occurred which it was the result of. But there may be an interest in having the case retried vs outright overturning. In this case, the district and circuit courts didn't have a procedural error, error in law, or error in judgement of existing precedent. With the establishment of new precedent, SCOTUS should have overturned the lower courts.

To note, This is kind of an unusual remand. SCOTUS didn't have to remand this case back down if they felt it would overturn the lower court rulings. Most remands I've seen, were to prevent overturning a decision. Consider a criminal trial and conviction, where maybe something was inadmissible as evidence, but the courts allowed it. Instead of overturning the decision, they decided the case should be reheard without it. By doing so, it would actually prevent the overturning of the decision. It's not to get the "ruling/opinion" right, but rather to ensure the process was correct that lead to the decision. In this case, either SCOTUS felt a reversal was bad for their image, or they had enough cases it wouldn't have been timely to hear it. Considering 3 gun cases were remanded I feel it was the latter.

I read it differently, and typically a remand would mention the lower court it's being remanded to for clarity. The order references SCOTUS actions, not the circuits. Based on SCOTUS actions, the original opinion was vacated, and the remand will lead to further proceedings.... aka they will rehear the case. I dont beleive they can just change their opinion. Since scotus remanded the cases, the opinion must first be vacated, then it will be reheard using the original arguments, possibly leading to a updated opinion. Also, I beleive there is a more "proper" way to remand a case back down to lower courts. I dont beleive they can just pen an order stating it is remanded. The court would accept the case, typically read the oral arguments, and either grant the case, uphold lower courts or remand. A remand also typically has instructions to the lower court as to what they possibly did wrong.

I'm pretty sure this falls under similar situation as gambling, there is no tax when you put in a ticket, only If you win. If you cashed in 300 bucks for chips, or made a bet, you don't pay tax on that. Same with paying for a 2 dollar lotto ticket. Technically nothing is being sold.

With a payout this large, I don't think you will be seeing any tax benefits taking the annuity payments.

You would be an idiot to not put either the lump sum or annuity payments into a Trust. Gift tax ain't nothing to play with when looking at that kinda cash.

Meh, I dont see why it should be tax free... If I'm paying taxes on actual earned income.... fuck that. The lottery is just like many other sin taxes, it's allowed with the presumption the tax will be used for something "good". NJ lotto tax is supposed to go to schools.

Of you choose the instant cash out, it's always lower, and isn't it almost 40% tax or something?.... "for the children".

I find it hard to beleive they would vacate an opinion, and then restate it. Which is a good indicator they would be flipping. It was remanded to district in a month? That's a good timeline. The district court will now hear it. It's less "reaching" which is probably why they did it. This is legal damage control. I wouldnt be surprised if it wasn't appealed. It would apply to all of NJ though.

I don't beleive the appellate courts would kick a remanded cases down to lower courts with respect to this case for 2 reasons. 1. Both Appellate and District court rulings were the same. To remand the case again, to an even lower court would suggest the appellate decision was wrong in some respect, but they already ruled on it... that ruling is what's being challenged. I don't beleive a case that's already been ruled on can be struck and remanded. If for example the lower district court reversed opinion, the appellate courts decision still takes precedent because it's a higher court. 2. SCOTUS remanded the case which explicitly states for the appellate court to rehear the cases under Bruen..

Isn't it $5 to convert an existing firearm, but $200 to purchase?

Obvious conflict of interest, that's like a doctor treating themselves.