Soju

No, he has to stand up for himself often here because of what he says. It has little to nothing to do with people being "anti-law enforcement". It mostly has to do with people disagreeing with him specifically. In this case HE made claim that cops should have more privileges because they are cops, and get to follow different rules. That is a sentiment that rightisright disagrees with.

Blasphemy! Firearms are very often and commonly used to deescalate situations! Hopefully, that happens before you need to use deadly force, but it doesn't always work that way. That is why we use firearms.... So you are telling me, if someone broke into your home, and had a knife, that even if as soon as he sees the gun, he drops the knife and puts his hands up, you are still going to shoot him? If you answer yes, I think you may need to recheck your moral compass. If you answer no, then you have just used it to deescalate a situation. Now that happens to be the same as stopping a threat, so maybe your post was confusing and/or poorly worded/thought out.

F-16's are indeed very sexy, but the F-15 can do something the F-16 will never be able to do. Keep flying after it loses an engine! I wish I could get an incentive ride in a fighter. Fighter guys/gals get to fly in heavies all the time. It is only fair!

Though in this case, as the thread title suggests, it is Darwin in action, and this kid certainly isn't the epitome of society. However, even if he bought it at some party, it doesn't mean it was an illegal purchase. I mean, if he had no criminal record, and was not prohibited already, which he likely isn't, it was probably completely legal on his end. Now, of course the seller could have sold it illegally. Florida and federal law only require you to be 18 to purchase a handgun in a in-state face to face purchase from a non-FFL. You are only required to be 21 when purchasing from a FFL (for a handgun that is). Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.

Most people say it only applies to the owner, but most people also say this based only on their interpretation or implication, and NOT what the law actually says. As far as I am aware, there is nothing that specifically says you must be the owner, nevertheless the sole owner. Here are two threads in which this was discussed. Nobody was able to definitively prove one way or the other though. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/30128-carrying-at-work/ http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/23021-place-of-business/

It did but then the Liberty Bell cracked. I thought they stopped ringing it since?

I'm glad K-pop is finally getting some attention over here! (My avatar is the girl, 김현아, from the 2nd half of the video)

False. Fact. But to answer the questioned asked in the thread title, there isn't one. Why do people allow it to happen? Because there is no recourse and we are threatened with force and violence if we don't comply.

Though they said they would send it off our coast, Iran has no intention of doing so. It was said as propaganda, and that propaganda was directed mostly to Iranians. It isn't uncommon for them to make claims like this. In fact they do so fairly often.

That would probably scare them all the way back to the Persian Gulf!

Usually something like... or or something similar. Sorry. I haven't mastered the ability to read inflection and tone from typed text yet. I'm working on it.

You phrase it as if asking a question about what is/isn't legal/illegal is a bad thing, and one should immediately and always except how others act, without thought, indiscriminately.

Exactly. NJ is backwards from the rest of the US. When it comes to firearms, they are illegal except under various exemptions. As TheDon said, a handgun is legal at your residence. The question remains, does a motor home parked at a rented spot of a campground count? Maybe in some NJ statute this is defined, but I'm not sure where. If it isn't, then we can't know if it is legal or illegal.

Well to be fair, NYC gun control was never intended to actually work that way. It was intended for control. So in that respect, it has worked great! Bloomberg might as well been the criminal who robbed your friend.

I agree with most of the above. In the absence of any clear answer in the statutes that neither explicitly allow or prohibit it, I would say it is up to you. What level of risk are you willing to accept? The ability to protect yourself/family vs. not. Having a gun in your possession legally vs. illegally. Would you rather risk having an illegal gun but the ability to defend yourself better or lesser means to defend yourself because you have no gun at all? I don't think I nor anyone else can answer those questions for you. If however someone can find a better answer or something in the code that has relevance to this specifically, that is a different story. I haven't had any luck doing so though.

Nobody likes constant loud noise when they are trying to sleep. Nobody likes being told to be quiet when they are having a good time and things get loud. If things are loud and it isn't ridiculously late at night, and it annoys you to the point where you feel you need to call the cops, well I hope you never have a good time and get loud. Of course there is a difference between having an occasional party and being loud at decent hours, on the weekend, etc, and being continually loud all the time, super late at night. There is a balance between enjoying yourself and having respect for your neighbors. There is a balance between putting up with noise, and being the douchey neighbor who immediately complains. I know I've been very annoyed with neighbors being loud when I'm trying to sleep. But I'm not about to start a dispute about it because I got annoyed. I've had the police called on me a couple times when I was renting a house and threw parties. It was on weekends, and not very late. We quieted down...briefly. Do you think we were as receptive after having to deal with police rather then a neighbor courteously asking to keep the noise down? I'm really not sure honestly. But do you think I'm going to be courteous to them if they have a party sometime and get a bit loud? Doubtful. As for police snooping around your backyard, and opening up a closed gate, for a noise complaint? Not called for. It isn't as if they are investigating a shooting. Now if they tried to knock and nobody answered, or tried to get someones attention first, and had no luck, it becomes understandable.

I wouldn't like to see that at all, but I imagine that isn't uncommon.

I think the Department of Corrections also carry HK USP's, when armed, but I'm not positive.

Nothing. But that really isn't the issue in NJ. The issue is that when it comes to firearms, unless you can find where it says you CAN do that, it is treated as illegal. It is unfortunate that we even have to have these discussions. Unfortunately, unlike pretty much every other state, where they outline where possession, etc, is illegal, here only outline where it is legal, and everything else, by default, is illegal. Ass backwards if you ask me. I'd have to look up the other statute that deals with target shooting, but I think it may allow it specifically in there. Now I'm not sure anybody with any common sense would say you couldn't, but as I said before, who knows if those in a position of authority will exercise or use it or not. In short, NJ laws are jacked up. Exercise judgment, don't do anything you are positive is specifically illegal, and don't do anything to bring specific attention that may lead to unwanted attention. I am certain it is lawful, but I have little faith that if something were to arise, that that means much.

I'm not aware of anybody claiming FOPA in the manner you described. Maybe you are mixing it up with that it applies to any place from one state, to anyplace in ANOTHER state? Either way, I digress. FOPA is not applicable. As you stated, who knows what the definition of moving is. Also, who really knows whether or not common sense will be applied, or if the law will even be followed to begin with. But I suppose you are right. If that is all inclusive, then even though it says that "nothing shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his premises or other land possessed by him part", how would you ever be able to do so if you can never transport it there? It gives no example to where you could ever transport a firearm to your "premises or other land possessed". None. It is also inconsistent on its terminology. In one part, it says dwelling. In the next, it says residence. Again though, it says dwelling. Odd.

Careful now! Once someone gets that idea, it becomes death by powerpoint, and nobody learns anything. Trust me. It seems like every week I have to do some new powerpoint based training course on something, and I definitely don't just click through it...........

Keyboard warriors that do things like post threads bitching about not getting their way, or some other type of keyboard warrior?

Wet blanket!

Now I almost wish you had to wait longer. Might as well brought in a coupon from an entirely different store.