Soju

I doubt they have released all the info too. Usually on stories like this, the more info that comes out the worst it looks. At least now, we can speculate one way or the other. But sense 'exigent circumstances' were brought up, can you give me a scenario where detaining dozens of people for an extended period of time is necessary? Since this is dealing with catching a criminal, let's just stick with the applicable portion in bold. Since as noted, they must act on the information they have. So let's say that the tip they got was as legitimate as possible, the criminal was 100% in that group of cars. Let's also not even deal with the search of the vehicles, as the article said they were given consent (whether under duress or not, we will ignore this part). Is there 'exigent circumstances' to remove and handcuff everybody? Are they still operating under the same circumstances up to 2 hours later, as stated in the article? Under what situation, after having detained someone (the 'other relevant prompt action' part), is it still necessary to keep them detained for an extended period of time? Where in the constitution is this even allowed? I'd say you would have to be using a very loose definition of 'exigent circumstances'.

Doh! Yep, that makes more sense now. I have a feeling the people in the car are probably posting on some online forum how they were almost carjacked and murdered in the woods by a couple of hillbillies with guns!

I drive to NH through NYC (George Washington Bridge) from NJ with pistols regularly. God forbid you get into an accident, you don't have anything to worry about.

Why would you unload? Where in NH? Near Plymouth no?

First, if 'one' were to move from VT to NJ with 150-200 firearms, 'one' should verify oneself that they are NJ legal first. I wouldn't rely just on the word of an FFL for that. Especially if most of them are 'black guns'. If they are all indeed legal, then take one trip, two trips, or as many trips as you like to move them. Abide by FOPA transportation laws, and don't get pulled over in the process. Move them directly from one home to the other. Once they are at the new home in NJ, then congratulations, 'one' is now a legal owner of firearms in NJ. No other steps are necessary for 'one' to have them at their home. The legality of other usage may vary.

You are not applying 'exigent circumstances' correctly. Searching a house you just chased a criminal into without a warrant is different than detaining dozens of people for hours because though you don't know who, you think there might be a criminal among them. If they fail to be able to articulate even reasonable suspicion then they don't even have the right to detain you temporarily nevertheless search your car sans a warrant. Their actions fail even the most basic of stipulations required. A more appropriate comparison would be you being handcuffed and detained while your apartment is searched because they had a 'tip' there was a criminal in your apartment building. Because they don't know what the criminal looks like, they are detaining and searching everybody in the building. You would be fine with that?

Does said felon with the same name have the same SSN as you, same address, and same DOB as you? If not, this should be about the easiest thing in the world to fix. In fact, it shouldn't have even been a problem to begin with. What year is it again? Is there nothing at those who run the votings disposal to figure out this simple 'problem'? If they can't figure out how to fix this, I doubt they can figure out how to correctly count the votes. In fact, I would bet almost anything they cannot.

Yes, I came home once to find those spider/cave crickets in my shower. I hate those **@ers. I think they eat each other if one dies. They have the speed of a green darner dragonfly and the agility of a shetland sheepdog, not to mention are as aggressive as a honey badger. Ugh! Once at my parents lake house in Maine I was woken up by my younger sister who said she couldn't go to bed because there was a giant spider on the stairs in the way. Even though I am arachnophobia, I figured how big could it be? Walked over to check it out and...holy #*it! The thing was massive. With the help of a cooking pot and my now awaken mother, we were able to capture the beast. As I had no time to waste, I threw the thing out the nearest window. I hope the spider made it out with the pot. Couldn't see, it was dark, but the pot definitely made it out the window. If I was to ever find out my town was infested by swarms of poisonous spiders, I would leave and never come back. I'd have to burn my clothes and ditch my car in a river in case any of the killers managed to hitch a ride. I suppose I would eventually start a whole new life somewhere else, like Tennessee. Maybe change my name, be the foreigner who marries a local beauty, and start a business teaching the locals how to speak English with the assistance from my new wife. It could be interesting.

Stupid and potentially very dangerous? Yes. Funny? Yes also. Something I would do? Not anymore, but maybe about 6 or 7 years ago. Personally, I found it hilarious. Solid prank.

We can what if all day. I have a what if. What if police followed the law? That is a much more relevant what if.

I believe you. It is very common for those in positions of authority to act outside of the law and make up their own rules. It doesn't mean they are right, or that their actions are legal. But in this day, the laws don't matter much if those who are suppose to uphold them don't do that... I have shown exactly what the 8 reasons for denial are. There are no other conditions that allow the police chief to deny it and let a judge decide...in law that is. Reality is far different as you have noticed.

Indeed, as mentioned below the posted statute. And to answer your question, my guess would be someone like the police chief who would deny someone for that would fall under "not under the best interested of public {safety}." I also find it ironic that on the application itself it says Wouldn't say a police chief who denies someone an FPID or a judge that denies one a carry permit have to check 'yes' and then list their job, as they are seeking to deny you your rights under the Constitution of the US? Though the question is rhetoric it is kind of like an additional slap in the face to you when you apply!

Ultra-dot, or the similar Millet.

Actually, I doubt he knows the law as there is nothing that says one can simply deny you and "let a judge" decide. There are 8 very specific reasons for denial. If it is not one of those 8, he HAS to approve your application. The law is clear. This nonsense that they don't want to be the one to make the decision is foolish and without merit. If the chief of police cannot follow the law, he has no business being chief of police nevertheless any official charged with enforcing the law. Here is the statue governing the issuance of an FPID. These are the only reasons for denial. Period. With that said, this of course is NJ, and they just happen to throw a nice little 'well really we can do what we want and have some standing' in the 5th (fifth) reason. Go figure they define specifically every other reason, yet leave the most vague one even more vague by not defining it.

I jumped last year once. The freefall was cool, but once I got under canopy all I wanted was to be on the ground! I fly for a living, and the whole 'lets jump out of a plane!' thing...was interesting....

This thread makes me feel good, considering I am from Southern New Hampshire! Open carry is legal. To get a conceal carry permit you need to do nothing more then walk into your local PD with the form and $10 dollars. If they are feeling particular that day, they might check your ID. No sales tax. Live Free or Die motto. Seat belts are optional if you are 18 or older. Helmets optional for you bikers. Last I checked (though things may have changed), anybody could buy a lot of different type of fireworks, and for the larger stuff, you had to be 18 (or is it 21?). Either way, assuming you are of age, it is no different then buying anything else. You walk into store, pay, and walk out. Like other real states, buying firearms is as easy as fireworks, except they run the NICS check (that is the one right?) So for rifles it is instantaneous. It has never taken me longer than 15 minutes for pistols. There are hockey rinks everywhere! Yeah! If you like the beach, it has that. If you like lakes, it has those. If you like general outdoorsy things, it has plenty of those too. If you like your own space, yep, got that. If you like big cities...drive 45 minutes south to Boston. I certainly wouldn't mind moving back home. But there are downsides. If you don't mind driving, it's cool. But unless you live in one of the few larger towns/cities in the state, plan on driving a ways. It isn't too bad though, and I found it somewhat comparable to where I am now in central/southish NJ...just with less people and less options. I do often miss beautiful NH. Edit: Those complaining about snow, you may be surprised. I know we have had some mild winters in NJ recently, but the other year we got as much snow here as up in the northeast, and in some cases, there was more! Also, people tend to drive better (or at least be better prepared, 4x4, winter tires, etc) up there than in NJ. In the more populous areas, the roads get salted and plowed about as well as you would expect. In the less populous, or more rural areas...well, it can be an experience! Buy a truck and put a plow on the front if you plan to live out in the real sticks.

Well what is your argument then? You said... Then the only state you came up with to support this, was NH. It turns out, NH happens to be the best state to prove the opposite. So I guess at this point I am confused what the rest of your arguments are.

This actually is not applicable to the situation, as it does not apply when in ones dwelling. There are of course a list of other stipulations that must be followed. furthermore... So in this case, had it been in NJ, It was his home. Check. It was sudden and unexpected. Check. There may not have been reasonable belief that the intruder would inflict harm, but there is an or... They demanded the intruder withdraw. So check. Regardless of whether he would be convicted or not, it seems like it may in fact pass as legal, based on the law, from my interpretation. Results would vary. The quoted parts are straight from 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

Unfortunately you are right. That isn't to say silverado is wrong, but perception is reality. In fact, I agree with silverado. If you're in genuine fear for your safety/life, even if you're really not, it doesn't necessarily make your actions illegal if you use deadly force. That is where you have two different mindsets. 1. If someone perceives their life is in danger (because it really feels like it is to them in the moment), then deadly force is justified. This is actually substantiated in NJ law. Whether it holds up or not is a different story, which leads to... 2. If someone wasn't actually in danger, and they used deadly force, it was not justified (regardless that they thought they were in danger). This is not substantiated in law, but is in practice and reality, as it has the advantage of being formed AFTER an incident. I would imagine the #2 wouldn't be the case with people who have actually been in a situation like described. It is easy to judge someone else.

Oddly, I agree with Jules here mostly. I didn't find anything wrong with his joke either. I'm a single male, that isn't gay. I can't say my first thought would be to shoot if I saw a hot college girl entering my home. Sorry, but especially if I was sleeping, I'm pretty sure thinking with my penis is instinctual, while it takes some time for my brain to warm up after just waking up. There is no doubt that the shooter would be charged if this took place in NJ. Not to say he wasn't justified, (I find it hard to blame him), but NJ has some whack-a** laws and general philosophy when it comes to things. As Jules pointed out, the laws regarding use of force have some many stipulations, exceptions, exemptions, and scenarios, it wouldn't be too hard to swing it one way or the other.

Thank you, you are correct. I overlooked that as I don't live with any minors, so it didn't even occur to me to think about that. +1 to you.

I think most of us here agree, it is good that the homeowners will not be charged with anything, because they shouldn't. It was a shitty situation, and I don't fault them. The girl is lucky to be alive. She messed up, and payed the price. But charging her here, and with a felony? That is ridiculous. I'm sure nobody in the states attorneys office had ever been drunk before, or done something stupid before... I mean, if everybody that got drunk and did something illegal while intoxicated got charged with felonies, most of the adult population would be a felon. Making someone a convicted criminal when they never had any criminal intention, is more malicious then what it sounded like she did. Pity.

What about somewhere that you do not have jurisdiction in?

NJ has no firearm storage laws that I know of. If you own the business, you can have that pistol loaded in your pocket if you wish. And what do you mean "legally registered pistol"?

That is exactly wrong. The NH RSA governing the issuing of permits specifically says that it IS a valid purpose. Please don't spread lies. http://www.gencourt....i/159/159-6.htm Get your head checked, because it is failing you. Also you may have noticed the the very next sentence of that RSA says "The license shall be valid for all allowable purposes regardless of the purpose for which it was originally issued." Kind of hurts your argument that because you didn't state "self defense" as a reason (or stated no reason at all), that it means self defense cannot then be a valid reason. You know, because the one state I looked up so far...specifically says the opposite. But maybe being in NJ, a state the firearm laws aren't followed, you got confused.