Midwest

Right and neither are black powder guns, or sling shots. There have been posts (on this forum) about people buying a BB gun or Black Powder gun in PA and bringing it back.

GOA (Gun Owners Of America) has a page about a reciprocity bill by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) and it mentions Shaneen Allen. http://gunowners.org/a08202014a.htm In fact GOA says that there is/was a Pro-2nd Amendment Rally in front of the Atlantic County Superior Court in New Jersey to protest the judge and prosecutor in her case. There is a Facebook page about the rally. I just found out about it, I would have mentioned it earlier if I heard about it earlier. https://www.facebook.com/events/818912281461216/ (From the Facebook Page) "If you cannot come to Protest tomorrow, then please call all numbers below, to demand phony gun charges be dropped against this law abiding citizen Shaneen Allen immediately and complain that Judge/Prosecutor are violating her/our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms! NJ Governor Chris Chistie - 609-292-6000 Attorney General John Hoffman - 609-292-8740 Prosecutor James P. McLain - 609-909-7800 Hon. Judge Michael Donio - 609-909-8204 Media Guy Jay McKeen - 609-909-7198" At least this is getting more national attention.

Since this is receiving National attention. People who were previously unaware of NJ's arcane, antiquated and draconian gun laws are more aware now. But it is also putting the state, it's laws and politics in a bad light and there are a lot of unfortunates tied to this case. Because of the national attention. People might be inclined to think that since they can't defend themselves in NJ like they can in other states they might not feel safe. Because of that impression, perhaps those who might have picked the state as a place to vacation at, now look elsewhere to spend their money. Perhaps those who wished to visit for a day or two might have changed their minds. Those who might have wanted to pass through the state might be looking for a different way around it now. Unfortunately this case has left the impression that honesty may not be the best policy after all. Unfortunately this case leaves the impression for visitors to the state that while being open and honest with a cop back home is a good thing. They may feel now that may not be the the best approach when it comes to New Jersey. No I am not anti LEO.

How did you find out about it 30 years later?

All I know is that if a person is in the military and lives in state A but he is stationed on permanent duty in State B. He may buy from either state. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=758807 Some have claimed that if a person lives in two states (non military situation) A drivers license in one state and a non drivers license in another state should satisfy the legalities. I am not a lawyer and that advice should be checked out with a lawyer. If you really wanted that rifle, could you have just had him ship it to an FFL in Florida? Is there a separate non resident FID card? .

Regardless if it was found in NJ or any other state. The rifle could be stolen or might have been used in a crime. Or maybe it is just forgotten, and the rifle is free and clear legally. Is there a way to get it "checked out" (serial numbers) without any charges bought against the person who found it ? And if the person who found it, wants to sell someone with an FID or FFL I think they should be able to ...IF the rifle is worth restoring...and (legal) not stolen. The other solution,.... if it isn't worth restoring, is to wait for one of those gun buybacks and get $100 or whatever out of it. .

I think ALL politicians need to undergo a complete mental health evaluation and drug testing, criminal, financial background checks before running for office and every year that they remain in office.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have heard.

Fox 4 out of Dallas is picking up the story again . This time they are saying she could face 11 years behind bars. But read the comments afterward below. http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/26222456/honest-gun-owning-mom-now-facing-11-years-behind-bars " After hearing about the case, most people thought there's no way she would do time for an honest mistake. Well, yesterday she was in court and she can now face a maximum sentence of 11.5 years in prison. Ten years for possession of a weapon and another 18 months for possession of the bullets. Allen's attorney Evan Nappen discussed how a person with no prior offenses could end up spending a decade behind bars for being honest." What does the rest of the country think? Many of the comments after the article were from the Dallas/Forth Worth area "This is a waste of tax payers money. Go after real criminals and leave law abiding citizens alone! Unreal to think of all the waste involved, typical liberal logic." "Making criminals out of honest people...." "This is just wrong. I pray they have a jury who believes in firearms and the right to protect one's self." "So I take it no one in New Jersey is allowed to protect themselves. This is wrong and it makes no sense she was licensed to carry it. That is crazy." "tried to apply for a NJ concealed carry permit once. I went to the police station and asked for the paper work. Instead of giving me the forms to fill out they asked me "What do you do for a living?" I told them I'm an engineer. They wouldn't even give me the paperwork. They essentially said unless I was a cop I wouldn't get one so they wouldn't let me apply. Didn't deny my application - they didn't even let me apply." ""Jury Nullification." Say it loud. Say it often."

I am no lawyer. But if "jury nullification" can't be mentioned, can the defendant use (the fact that nullification can't be mentioned) for an appeal (if she is found guilty) ? Nappen (her lawyer ) could not mention jury nullification? Is this just limited to New Jersey? When can 'jury nullification' be mentioned?

Or take a trip to Pennsylvania....

This could also backfire and also expose the insanity of NJ Gun laws to the rest of the country. Then maybe the NRA, GOA and other organizations will get off their asses and finally start paying attention to NJ. This will also put the spotlight on Gov. Christie as well. To where he will have to discuss this case and his real views on gun control to the rest of the country. I bet right now he is looking to further his career in an possible Republican administration in the near future. This is something Christie just can't 'sit on the fence' or blow it off by saying "New Jersey is Special" . That won't play in the other pro-gun states and 'Middle America". I can also see Evan Nappen making quite a few media appearances over this case and NJ in general thus shedding the spotlight on NJ even further.

Since this is already a national story, it is going to shed light on New Jersey's archaic and draconian gun laws. It would be nice if the NRA , GOA and other pro-gun organizations would start taking more interest in New Jersey. With Nappen defending her, I think he will help put New Jersey's gun laws 'on trial' in a matter of speaking. I hope there is some good that comes out of this. Perhaps Nappen can make quite a few media appearances and shed the spotlight on NJ even further. I think it might help. I think Gov. Christie needs to talk about NJ gun laws in general and this case on some national media outlet like Fox News and not just some local station. If he wants to look good to the Republicans and possibly insure his political career in an Republican Administration he needs to be asked if he would support and sign a conceal carry bill if the bill came before him. I have seen a comment somewhere here on njgunforums that Christie allegedly said "NJ is special" when the topic of carry in NJ came up. Not sure what that means, but that won't play to the rest of the country. My observation as an outsider is that NJ politicians are stuck in the early 1980's when Handgun Control and a "Million Commie Mommies" made some noise and a few people listened. Majority of the reason the state has low gun ownership is because of that damned Firearms ID card scheme orchestrated by former NJ Attorney General Arthur Sills in 1966. Sills as some of you might know also helped Thomas Dodd with the 1968 Gun Control act! Sills participated in the "Dodd (gun control) Hearings" in 1965 . As most of you know, the "Dodd Hearings" lead up to the 1968 GCA. No I don't have the answer and if I think I have the answer it would probably wrong anyway. But keep on keeping on. The rest of the country is starting to listen.

In addition... also the Police of Miami http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3178465/posts "Miami-Dade Police Urge Residents To Arm Themselves After Possible Budget Cuts" . Also Police Chief Craig of Detroit (who also happens to be the former police chief of Cincinnati - just across the river from here) "Detroit Police Chief James Craig Wants YOU! To CCW!" . http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/01/chris-dumm/detroit-police-chief-wants-ccw-really/ Would you believe a Pro Gun Sheriff in California? " We live in Mendocino County and the Sheriff (a personal friend of ours) smiles, shakes our hand and thanks us for having a license and carrying every day." http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9568107&postcount=43 .

I wish everyone would be able to carry to protect themselves regardless of what city or state they are in, regardless if they are the average Joe or Jane or regardless if they are a LEO or ex LEO. Nothing more to add to it. .

On another forum, it was mentioned that it would make no difference if DC became a state or remained like it is now . "Unless the new State of DC was somehow moved out of the court district where this ruling was handed down, the ruling would still apply." But be careful of the Gun Free School Zones http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=9560750&postcount=77 "One thing to be exceptionally careful about is GFSZA. That could be an absolute KILLER. As you can't possibly have a permit to carry issued by DC that qualifies you to carry within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school, you would be violating GFSZA if you do. And you can rest assured that there are a LOT of schools in DC. And you can visualize that when you're on a random city street you're almost always within 1,000 feet of hundreds of things you don't know of or suspect are there. Like schools. Now, I have to imagine that probably about 0.01% of DC cops have ever heard of GFSZA, and even fewer would have any better idea than you do that you happen to be standing 937' from Ms. Crabopple's second grade class held in the basement of the local Catholic Church. (And the Chief's instruction sheet did not bring up GFSCA as a useful "gotcha!") But if they really wanted to HURT people who dared carry in the District, that would sure be a way to do it. If you're going to carry, try your darnedest to figure out ahead of time how to avoid school grounds." .

I need to post this question Has anyone here heard that Obama is in favor of DC becoming a state? http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/obama-on-dc-statehood-im-for-it/2014/07/21/86536f3a-110d-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html If DC does become a state, would the recent ruling also transfer over? Or will DC start their firearms laws from scratch (because they would be a new state) and just end up as another state with lack of gun rights? Maybe the Prez saw this coming down the pike and that is why he said that statement. Maybe that is why there isn't a bigger uproar over this? Because DC will become a state? Just a coincidence that his speech was just a week ago. . .

Whatever happens, y'all welcome to visit and open carry anytime here in the Bluegrass. Y'all aint done need no permit in these parts.

In addition to New Jersey there is also Maryland, Hawaii, New York City and the other counties in NY State and California that are "may not issue" as well as Rhode Island which 1/2 the state is "may not issue". Just remember what I said in another post here on NJgunforums about how the NJ Supreme Court ruled in the three challenges to the 1966 FID law in "Burton vs. Sills" . I'll repeat an excerpt here. http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/70719-another-victim-of-senseless-nj-laws/page-3#entry894564 "....the courts relied on "United States v. Cruikshank " which the court ruled that second amendment did NOT apply to the States and that 1876 ruling was consistent with the 1833 ruling "Barron v. Baltimore" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. At the time (1967-1968) the NJ Supreme Court was bound by those rulings. And from what I am reading, that after "McDonald v. Chicago" the NJ Supreme Court is bound by that and not "United States v. Cruikshank " . What am I talking about? The rulings in the "Burton vs. Sills" in 1967-1968 need to be revisited or thrown out because "United States v. Cruikshank " and "Barron v. Baltimore" are no longer precedent in the law. "McDonald v. Chicago" is now precedent. Ergo the Sills 1966 FID law needs to thrown out in order to be consistent with "McDonald v. Chicago" because the prior ruling were based on finds that no longer take precedent. " Not only can the 1966 FID law be challenged and possibly have (1967-1968 rulings on) "Burton vs Sills" overturned. But the other firearms laws as well as they were probably based on the flawed "United States v. Cruikshank " ruling at the time of their inception. And, as I mentioned in that other post. This could also help that lady from PA . Good Luck Guys .

Maintenanceguy, Thanks for posting this, this is significant. Also now reported here "BREAKING: DC’s Ban on Right To Carry Overturned By Dan Zimmerman on July 26, 2014" http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/daniel-zimmerman/breaking-dcs-ban-right-carry-overturned/ "Gun rights advocate extraordinaire Alan Gura reports that the DC District Court just overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on the right to carry firearms." .

Bolt Action Rifle is a "squirrel rifle" (Bolt Action is also available in .22 lr) 30 Round AR Magazine is "Standard Capacity" Less than 30 Round Magazine is "insufficient Capacity" Semi Automatic Rifle is a "Standard Rifle" Assault Gun is a "Standard Capacity Rifle" Air gun is an "pneumatic delivery device" like an air pump to inflate tires. Ask the anti-gunners why New Jersey has such weak self defense laws and what do they intend to strengthen them. I wonder what their answer would be. Peace Out

And even he requires "paperwork" too. It looks like this

Can someone please forward that to Evan Nappen?

I have been doing research again regarding the challenges to the 1966 FID law. I found a site that lets you look at the exact legal text regarding the cases. it is called https://www.courtlistener.com/ There were three challenges with "Burton Vs. Sills". One in 1967, another one in 1968 and yet another one in 1968. And the reason I am bringing up ancient history is because when I mentioned some of the NJ Supreme Court rulings in that era I was shocked that the courts were allowed to rule that way. One of the mods of another site which I posted to (who happens to be a lawyer) said that the reason the courts ruled that way was because until up until recently, the courts relied on "United States v. Cruikshank " which the court ruled that second amendment did NOT apply to the States and that 1876 ruling was consistent with the 1833 ruling "Barron v. Baltimore" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. At the time (1967-1968) the NJ Supreme Court was bound by those rulings. And from what I am reading, that after "McDonald v. Chicago" the NJ Supreme Court is bound by that and not "United States v. Cruikshank " . What am I talking about? The rulings in the "Burton vs. Sills" in 1967-1968 need to be revisited or thrown out because "United States v. Cruikshank " and "Barron v. Baltimore" are no longer precedent in the law. "McDonald v. Chicago" is now precedent. Ergo the Sills 1966 FID law needs to thrown out in order to be consistent with "McDonald v. Chicago" because the prior ruling were based on finds that no longer take precedent. And what does this have to do with the lady from Pennsylvania? I think Evan Nappen needs to look at this more closely. It might just help her case. __________________________________________________________________________________ (Here is my original post on THR and the very interesting answer by one of the mods who happens to be a lawyer.) http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=756407 "Site for looking up Court Cases on Firearms as well as other cases I found this while doing some more research on gun control in New Jersey. I found the three challenges to New Jersey's 1966 Firearms ID law in "Burton Vs Sills" 1967-1968-1968 Pt II. The site is called "Court Listener" and you can search millions of opinions by case name, topic, or citation in over 349 Jurisdictions. Sponsored by the Non-Profit Free Law Project https://www.courtlistener.com/ " About CourtListener CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts. With CourtListener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data." If anyone is interested in the three challenges to New Jersey's Controversial 1966 Firearms ID Card Law. Here are the following links. https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbve/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbA1/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc https://www.courtlistener.com/nj/8BEM/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc A person asked (on another forum) how can NJ's law stand in light of the Supreme Court decision in 2010. I suggested that a constitutional lawyer might be best to put it into perspective. If anyone is interested what the NJ Supreme Court had to say in regards of the 1966 FID Law...here are some excepts. Some of this might be an eye opener. " The court can conceive of no matter more concerned with public safety, health and welfare of the State of New Jersey than that the indiscriminate purchase and *527 use of firearms, and the regulation thereof should be subject to the police power of the State." "It is clear from all the foregoing authorities that the Second Amendment merely protects against unwarranted extensions of federal power and does not bar a state government from enacting regulations concerning the use and possession of arms" "We are satisfied that this gun control law is a proper and reasonable exercise of the State's police powers........" And this is how New Jersey views gun rights" "Inconvenience, delay and sensitive feelings are not adequate grounds for striking down this legislation and frustrating its good purposes." "Our basic freedoms may be curtailed if sufficient reason exists therefor. Only in a very limited sense is a person free to do as he pleases in our modern American society. Regulation by the government is the price we pay for living in an organized community. " " Reasonable gun control legislation is clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him. On balance, the interests of the State are manifestly paramount, and while New Jersey's comprehensive efforts may not prove to be wholly successful until suitably joined by other jurisdictions, they will undoubtedly have advanced the public welfare by having led the way. " So the above comments are from the New Jersey Supreme Court 1967-1968 in three separate decisions regarding "Burton Vs Sills" The challenge to the 1966 FID Law. I was wondering what your comments are (if any) regarding to the ruling and the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court. And hopefully you will find the link provided above useful in your researching of important laws regarding firearms as well as other cases." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (Answer below) "Those comments reflect the state of the law as of 1967-1968. At that time, the controlling federal precedent was United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1876). The Court in Cruikshank held, among other things, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. That was, at the time, consistent with the ruling in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U. S. (7 Pet.) 243 (Supreme Court, 1833) to the effect that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. A New Jersey state court was bound by those United States Supreme Court rulings on the federal question. It wasn't until later that SCOTUS began to apply, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Right piecemeal to the States. And it wasn't until McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2010) that the rights described by the Second Amendment were applied to the States. Thank you for finding that site and sharing the URL. I've bookmarked it." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Any comments? . .

These other sites are also covering the story Calguns Nyfirearms keepandbeararms pafoa smith-wesson ingunowners