Dan

Thanks autoxnyc. Thats interesting the frame is SS also, I didn't anticipate that, good to know. Bummer on the wood grips, I'm not a fan of fat handled guns. Have you shot a regular P226 before that you could compare the "elite" job they did on the Elite model?

Nice find! I hope this turns into a real product that we can use, like spray for textiles, and a wax for cars and other paint surfaces.

Thanks mcbethr, good intel on the .22 kit

I'm thinking of the Sig P229 Elite in stainless with the wood grips. I've never shot the gun, but I think it sure looks sexy. Anyone here own a 226 Elite that can add their experiences before I go through the PP process?

It appears to be a safe activity due to lack of evidence of anyone ever getting in trouble. As anyone going to or from PA or other states who was ever pulled with guns over most likely says I'm going shooting, or coming home from shooting, or if they are really smart keep their mouth shut. The odds of getting into trouble taking your HG to PA for CCW appear to be very slim. My argument is that it is not due to FOPA, as so much as with people not getting caught, or LE deciding not to pursue the issue if they do pull over someone going to or coming home from another state where they were CCW'ing with their guns. I do agree without a specific test case, this argument would go on forever. It works both ways, give me a case where FOPA protected someone pulled over in NJ where they stated they were going to PA to CCW. Since there aren't any that we are aware of or can find, we can't say FOPA has been protecting people under this circumstance until we do. Perhaps NJ law has been? No, I think we both agree there are no travel exemptions for it. I still feel FOPA works in the way I outlined above in my state A to F example. How others interpret it is up to them, along with everything gun law related in NJ.

Why do you keep forgetting the reasonable deviations under the circumstances clause? The airport/plane is a reasonable deviation for traveling purposes. If the "directly" thing has you hung up regarding interstate travel, join a rifle or pistol club that adheres to the statute's rules, it gets rid of the "directly" word:

I do not believe so. Again IMHO IMNAL and all that.... Origination and Destination states are bordering each other, you just have to follow each state's laws regarding possession and transportation while you are in each state. It is my opinion that FOPA is specific to protecting travelers from being snared by states in which you are traveling through to get from point A to F (origination and destination). Point A (origination state, follow all local and state laws on possession and transport until you pass the border), b, c, d, e (states where FOPA protects while you are traveling through), F (destination state, when you cross the border into it, all its local and state laws now apply for it)

NJ law stops once you pass the NJ border. When you are traveling to your destination such as a target shooting range out of state, all NJ laws apply while in NJ, that is you are transporting to the range which is out of state via air travel. Once you pass the NJ border, NJ jurisdiction stops. When you are returning home from your 6 day trip, as soon as you pas back into NJ, you must go directly home, to a range, or other exempted place listed in the statutes since being back in NJ, you must be traveling with the firearm according to its laws. I didn't say "legal to carry" anywhere, what do you mean by that. Don't put words in my mouth please. I'm saying that the whole FOPA concept of legal where you begin and legal where you arrive is referring to state and local (municipality within those states) levels. IMO, the firearm you are transporting while in NJ must adhere to NJ transport laws. Lets say you are leaving your house with your HG to go to PA for CCW activities. Sure your HG is legal while in your house on your property, but once you hit the road, you are no longer legal as you are not traveling with the HG for an exempted travel activity according to NJ law. So while in NJ , your HG in your trunk is no longer legal. So how can FOPA help you now? You are no longer legal while in NJ. I feel the gun has to be legal according to the origination state's laws under all circumstances of your possession while you are in that state, which includes while driving on public roads, etc. Here is my post again:

Occupational hazard of living in NJ. This could happen to anyone if they loose a HP bullet in their car, or accidentally leave one in a bag that you later use for non-exempt activities. The report says he was stopped after police responded to a "hit and run" , perhaps they stopped and questioned him, but I don't see that he was actually implicated in the hit and run.

Wow, the anti's are getting more and more desperate.

If someone is there to do serious harm, chances are they are prepared with weapons, and you would be not. If something warrants a "lock-down" why don't they just lock all the doors and call the police? I know its the whole "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" thing, but hopefully locking the doors would slow them down.

FOPA was designed to protect people from traveling from one state to another, to offer protection while en-route through states that may have stricter gun laws than the origination and destination states. I believe the interpretation of "legal where you begin" or origination is considered to be your starting state. I feel you must be in possession and transporting under your origination state's laws, and FOPA kicks in once you leave its borders. Then once you pass your destination state's border, you must be in possession and transporting legally according to that state's laws. Also, with plane travel, as I've said it before... this could be construed to be a reasonable deviation under NJ transportation exemptions. If you purchased a plane ticket to travel to a place where you are going to go target shooting , I'm pretty sure it is "reasonably necessary" "deviation" to go to the airport with your gun in order to catch your plane.

Ah yes, good catch with a long gun this is possible (i was thinking HG for some reason). Make sure the FFL is willing, and bring the NJ COE paperwork if he/she doesn't have it.

You have to make arrangements with a PA and NJ FFL. Have the PA FFL ship the gun to the NJ FFL, you then just do the normal NJ process with the NJ FFL to get it from him/her. There is no buying or selling involved, just the FFL service fees/shipping.

Inspections are a joke now. They plug jack your car into their computer to check for ODB trouble codes. Done. Funny how registration costs have gone up, regardless on how much DMV has been able to cut back with the joke inspection and longer list of inspection exemptions. Though, I am happy on how quick inspections go, how long you have in between them, and how I don't have to take my bike any longer.

So her argument is the concept of 'that's the way we've always done it, so it must be right', that's what comes to mind when she says "Historically"

Regarding the drunk cop example in which another cop wants to remove his weapon from him (possessed legally of course).... If they arrest the cop for disorderly conduct, public intoxication, etc... part of the arrest procedure would be to disarm the drunk cop and impound his personal belongings for keeping while he is in jail. I am also curious if the laws/rules around the handling of personal property have exemptions if part of that property is a firearm. I can use some help locating anything in the statutes to that regard. Otherwise, I couldn't find anything in the typical firearms statutes that would apply.

There is no statute that allows a LEO on duty to take possession of a gun from someone who possesses it legally. Unless the gun is being taken as evidence or the cop "believes" the possessor is possessing it illegally, nothing gives the cop the ability to just take/confiscate the weapon, so they should be following 2C:58-3 and its subsections in that regard. There may be rules/procedures/statutes that override this regarding the impounding of a person's personal possessions during arrest that I'm not aware of. If I'm in my backyard with my rifle (legal), and the police come and arrest me for securities fraud, they do not have the authority to take the rifle from my property. Of course they can demand that I place it down and put it in a safe place as part of the arrest procedure, but they cannot just take/impound/confiscate the rifle unless they believe I possess it illegally, or it is evidence in part of the crime that I am being arrested for.

AN-94 is sexy. 2 rounds fired with the recoil of one at 1800rpm, then optionally switch to 600rpm full auto looks and sounds amazing. Wish we could have them here.

If someone has a weapon on them while being arrested for a crime, in many cases that weapon would be confiscated as part of the evidence regardless of the crime for which they are being arrested for. This is especially true for NJ, as there are very limited circumstance for which a civilian could legally posses/carry a weapon. This subsection provides for an extremely ambiguous loop-hole for LE... "because he believed it to be possessed illegally" If it were one of the limited circumstances such as being arrested for a motor vehicle violation while driving to the range with a rifle being transported in the trunk. Is it not reasonable for the cop to "believe" it is "possessed illegally" therefore garnering him/her protection under 2C:39-3 g. That opens the door to tons of "what if's"... as in what if this person is not in legal possession of the gun. That is how our laws are set up, guilty until proven innocent in court. What gun laws are there for civilians that give us protections because we "believe" something to be true. None that I know of. 2C:39-3 g.Exceptions. (1) Nothing in subsection a., b., c., d., e., f., j. or k. of this section shall apply to any member of the Armed Forces of the United States or the National Guard, or except as otherwise provided, to any law enforcement officer while actually on duty or traveling to or from an authorized place of duty, provided that his possession of the prohibited weapon or device has been duly authorized under the applicable laws, regulations or military or law enforcement orders. Nothing in subsection h. of this section shall apply to any law enforcement officer who is exempted from the provisions of that subsection by the Attorney General. Nothing in this section shall apply to the possession of any weapon or device by a law enforcement officer who has confiscated, seized or otherwise taken possession of said weapon or device as evidence of the commission of a crime or because he believed it to be possessed illegally by the person from whom it was taken, provided that said law enforcement officer promptly notifies his superiors of his possession of such prohibited weapon or device.

Have to dig this up again... So 2C:39-6 provides for exemptions to 2C:39-5 which is "Unlawful possession of weapons". You claim that 2C:39-6 allows for LE to take posession of weapons while they are on the job when those weapons are not believed to be prohibited (which is protected under 2C:39-3 g.). This would mean that they would be able to forgo 2C:58-3 rules on "sell, give, transfer, assign or otherwise dispose of, nor receive, purchase, or otherwise acquire" firearms while performing their duties while on the job. My argument is that 2C:39-6 exemptions only cover the possession of weapons, not "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring". These activities are all covered under 2C:58-3. 2C:39-6 exemptions refer only to carrying, possessing, and transporting. There is no mention of "acquiring" under 2C:39-6. The bottom line is 2C:39-6 provides for exemptions from 2C:39-5 (Unlawful possession of weapons). My argument is that 2C:39-6 does not provide exemptions for "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" as these are covered under 2C:58-3 in that exact wording. Notice how 2C:58-3 makes no mention regarding possession, carrying, or transporting because they are covered by other statutes. Just like having a CCW permit allows you to posses and carry a firearm, ... not to purchase, receive, or acquire. There are different statutes that cover these activities. If 2C:39-6 exemptions did cover "selling, giving, transfering, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring", then a cop could forgo the FID/Pistol Permit/COE process when purchasing or getting a gun as a gift while on the job performing their duties. Here's another example... two roomates living together both own pistols, they want to swap guns, so while in their dwelling they do so without the need to fill out any paperwork because they are covered under 2C:39-6 e. exemptions. Heck with that logic, they can then even take their newly acquired handguns to the range or their place of business with protections under the same exemptions. I think not. IMO, for a cop to "selling, giving, transferring, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" a rifle or handgun that he/she feels is not prohibited while on duty, they would have to abide by all the rules under 2C:58-3 and its subsections governing the "selling, giving, transfering, assigning, disposing, receiving, purchasing, or acquiring" of firearms.

No matter how much I want to get behind this guy's fight because I feel NJ has violated the rights of an innocent man, he seems to be a dumbarse. Not showing up to your own court battle because he "thought" he would be cleared is just idiocy, lying to police, trying to evade the US Marshal Service, and prior domestic assault charges involving firearms... just begs me to steer clear. Not the best example case to get behind. I mean, lets face it. No matter who the person is that gets nabbed in NJ's web, they will try to make that person look like a devil at all costs. Comments like "AR-15 assault rifle", and such. But this guy just added fuel to the fire.

Wow thats a great deal. Now if BCM only lowered the prices on their complete uppers.... ;p

Christie thought he was being slick by turning it into a "State's Rights" issue over a firearms issue. He didn't flat out say that he thinks CCW should be banned or opposes it, just that he feels it should be within a State's power to create it's own laws around it. He can fall back to either position ... when pro-gun rights people question him, he can turn it to a matter of State's Rights and how we have to change the State's laws to get CCW. With the anti's he can say that he was helping them out by giving his opinion on blocking CCW permit holders from other states the ability to carry legally in NJ.

I believe they are interpreting the excise tax incorrectly. The FAET looks to apply only to full firearms or kits that contain everything to make a functioning firearm. A lower with a LPK cannot make a fully functioning firearm. 4. Where does FAET apply? FAET applies to: Portable weapons that use an explosive to expel a projectile such as: Pistols Revolvers Shotguns Rifles Black powder firearms Machine guns Antique firearms [Refer to Revenue Ruling 57-606 and Revenue Ruling 74-137 ] Ammunition such as: Shells Cartridges [Refer to 27 CFR 53.61(a)(4) ] Firearms and ammunition that are unassembled but contain all component parts (such as firearms kits) [Refer to Revenue Ruling 56-208 and Revenue Ruling 62-169 ] 5. Where does FAET not apply? FAET does not apply to: Non-portable weapons (such as cannons) Any device that does not use an explosive to expel a projectile such as: Air pistols Air rifles [Refer to Revenue Ruling 67-453 ] • Starter pistols that use blank ammunition [Refer to Revenue Ruling 60-233 ] Individual parts of firearms such as : Frames Receivers Barrels Magazines Sights [Refer to 27 CFR 53.61(b)(5)(ii) ] Any extra or spare parts that come with a firearm such as: Extra barrels Extra sights Spare magazines Spare cylinders [Refer to 27 CFR 53.61(b)(5)(iii) and Revenue Ruling 54-98 ] Accessories such as: Cleaning equipment Slings Slip on recoil pads Tools [Refer to 27 CFR 53.61(b)(5)(iv) and Revenue Ruling 54-98 ] Separate parts of ammunition such as: Cartridge cases Primers Bullets Powder [Refer to Revenue Ruling 68-463