Qel Hoth

STOVL, only, no vertical takeoffs.

If the first paragraph really is true, I sincerely hope the Muslim community sues the ever living **** out of NYC/Bloomberg... I don't know why, but I have a sudden urge to go to a Starbucks in NYC and brush up on my Arabic... I remember the alphabet... I think.

Check with PK90, he pins mags IIRC.

It would be a violation of 2C:39-5b, 3rd degree for BB/air guns, 2nd degree for real handguns. So essentially you carrying your handgun into your fathers home, with his permission and no criminal intent, is equivalent to aggravated assault, manslaughter, robbery, larceny (of more than $75,000), or second degree murder. 5-10 years in prison, fines up to $150,000.

As was discussed earlier, the information on the NJSP site is NOT law. The law was quoted earlier in the thread and I'm on a phone now. The law does NOT specify a locked case anywhere. Fopa does, but Fopa is irrelevant here.

The NJSA definition of handgun does not mention rifling at all. It is a firearm, that fires shotgun ammunition designed for sporting purposes, designed to be fired from a single hand, under NJ law, it is a handgun. Also, I see nothing in 2C:39-3 prohibiting AOWs.

Do not most indoor ranges have a "No Magnum" rule, or does that not apply to WMR/HMR?

Maybe I'm getting things confused, but isn't SJ fairly strict too?

According to several LEOs on this forum, no, they cannot see FID status based on DL/Tags. Also, if the FID database is anything like most databases available to police, you must have a good reason to be requesting information from them, as they are routinely audited and doing things you aren't supposed to do can result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination, as well as possible criminal charges, depending on what they were doing.

The NJSA site seems to be down at the moment, but no, your vehicle is not an extension of your home. You cannot have a firearm on your person while in a car on public roads. You might get away with it in a motor home, but still not on public roads. You do however own your vehicle, and have the right to be "secure in [your] persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Vehicle falls under the "effects" portion, and as such it cannot be searched without sufficient PC for a warrant. SCOTUS has ruled that warrantless searched may be performed in some circumstanced because of the mobile nature of a car. For the purposes of 4th amendment rights, your car is your "property," for purposes of firearms laws, it is not.

Seriously. I mean my handwriting is bad, but I was wondering what "cnot," "tallced," and "iSho" or "uSho" were...

No, you are not within the law. I think we interpreted "property" differently. I think you meant it as land, where as I just meant it as something you own. Either way, SCOTUS says you have an expectation of privacy in your vehicle, just that the police do not necessarily need a warrant to search it. However, they still have to be able to get a warrant for the search to be legitimate. If I am not required to tell him, I'd rather he not know that there is a firearm in the car at all. With most cops they'll probably be fine with saying that there is one in the car and you are on your way to the range, but you never know if/when you are going to the the asshole. An officer who asks questions like that is a good one, he's trying to find the criminals (who usually arent that bright...) and prevent them from causing harm. I don't intend to sound anti-leo BLF, but any question that someone is not legally obligated to answer is a question that an officer does not have the right to have answered. I understand that traffic stops are probably the most dangerous part of an officer's job, and as such I will do everything I can to ensure the officer that I do not intend to do him any harm, however, I don't know if you're the respectful Officer BLF who knows and respects my rights, or the 1 in 1000 asshole that thinks everyone but him is a criminal and should be treated as such. I don't know if you frequent officer.com, but I do recall reading a thread there in the "Ask a Cop" section, probably 8-12 months ago, where an officer responded that if he "wanted to search a vehicle he would do it, consent or not, PC or not." I agree that most of the officers are good, but there are those other ones out there.

IMO , IANAL Reasonable suspicion, maybe. Even if the bag said Glock, SigSauer, Colt, S&W, etc, on it, it would still only be RS that there is a firearm in the vehicle. I don't think that just that bag, or any other range bag, would lead to the level required for Probable Cause to get a search warrant (which is what you need to legally search a vehicle without consent, whether or not a warrant is actually required, the officer must have had sufficient evidence to obtain one). Your refusal to search or state what is in the bag cannot be used as evidence.

1) You can't be convicted of any crime for refusing to answer any question you are not legally obligated to answer. You CAN be convicted of a crime if you lie, and any information you volunteer is fair game as far as RS/PC and court. 2. You can't be convicted of any crime for refusing to answer any question you are not legally obligated to answer. You CAN be convicted of a crime if you lie, and any information you volunteer is fair game as far as RS/PC and court. You cannot be interrogated (interrogation is defined as custodial questioning) without a lawyer present, unless you waive this right. 3. An officer cannot legally search a vehicle without PC and/or a warrant. There is an established exemption for warrantless searches of vehicles due to their mobility, but the officer still must have PC to obtain a warrant for the search to be valid. If an invalid search finds a ton of weed, a loaded M16 you just stole from the nearest army base complete with flash hider, bayonet lug, and M203 underneath (also loaded), a crate of grenades (also stolen from the army base), google maps to the White House, and written threats against the President, you cannot be charged with any crime, nor can any of that evidence be used as RS/PC to initiate an investigation into you for any crimes. If you consent to the search, you're SOL. Obviously you won't be getting any of that back though. While you may be temporarily inconvenienced and have your rights violated anyway, if you do not consent to the violation of your rights any evidence cannot be used against you. Your car is your property, you have a degree of privacy to be expected inside your car, though not nearly the degree that is to be expected inside your home. This is SOCTUS ruling and based in the Constitution, therefore any possible NJ law to the contrary (though I am not aware of any) is irrelevant. The state does not have the power to say that your car is or is not your property. Your car IS your property and that cannot be disputed. However, a state can require a search warrant for a vehicle search, thus giving the car a greater degree of expected privacy than SCOTUS, but to my knowledge none do. EDIT - If I am ever asked by an officer if I have anything (weapons, drugs, Furbies) in the vehicle, my answer will be "Sir/ma'am, I would prefer not to answer that question." Unless of course I am legally obligated to do so. Refusal of consent to search or answer any question one is not obligated to answer CANNOT be used as PC to initiate a search.

I handled the m&p 22 today (thanks Paul), and it felt very nice. It's a full size gun, not a tiny thing like the ruger/walther, and so the grip is much larger and there is a bit more heft to it. I will definitely be getting the m&p 22 when my permits come in.

I agree with the others. Under 2C:39-6g - Using this bag in NJ 1. - All magazine pouches will be filled, with loaded magazines. 2. - Handgun, without magazine and unloaded will be in the insert part of the case. 3. - No "handgun" lock on the gun itself or thru the camber, etc. 4. - No locking of the pouch/case itself, it's just "closed and fastened via the zipper. 5. - Transporting to the range via a pick-up truck, with access cab. 1. Ammunition/magazines not specifically mentioned. Mags loaded with ammo (not in a gun) does not make a loaded gun. 2. Unloaded, in a case 3. Not required 4. Closed and fastened. 5. In a closed and fastened case, you're good. Now, if you were to get stopped and searched don't expect to be let go, but you are within the law. IANAL.

Not everything schools do is in the best interests of the students. In 8th grade I was suspended for 2 weeks because I dared to fight back when a bully tried to push my head through the window on the bus. There was a camera on the bus, which clearly showed that I was minding my own business, other kids around the incident, as well as the bully himself, said the same thing. It didn't matter to the principal, there is a zero tolerance policy for fighting he said. When my parent's asked if I was supposed to just sit there and get hit and do nothing about it, he said yes, that is the only acceptable response. It wasn't all bad though, since I didn't start the fight my parents weren't mad, so I got a 2 week vacation and the bully didn't bother me for the next 5 years. Getting away from the violence/illegal topic, not all academic policies are in the best interests of the students either. When I graduated high school, we were not required to take a lunch, and we were not required to take any specific science course, though we did need 2 lab sciences to graduate, leaving students to take courses they were interested in as well as time for electives. I never took a lunch in any of the 4 years, which allowed me to take the required courses, as well as be in the band, study 2 languages, 3 years of Chemistry, 2 years of Physics, and also take a number of non-academic electives, namely wood shop, small engines, and CADD. Now, however, lunch is required, so I would have had to give up one of my languages, band, or electives. Also, it is now a requirement that students must take one year of chemistry, and one year of biology. As I knew in high school that I wanted to study engineering, biology is of little consequence to me, however, the ability to take both AP physics and AP chemistry was of great consequence, as it allowed me to earn 16 credits while still in high school. With the current system, it would be all but impossible to take both AP chem and physics. Also, to my knowledge, wood shop and small engines are no longer offered by the school. Also, my junior year, the state was considering making biology a mandatory subject for all students and having a science portion of the HSPA to test biology. My class was selected to be the class to test the test, and me, despite not having had biology since the 7th grade and even then, it was only half a year, somehow managed to score Advanced Proficient.

I was referring more to the two idiots in the video. It annoys me every time the guy at my range walks in front of the gun I just laid on the counter with the action locked back. I can't imagine intentionally pointing a loaded gun at another person whom I do not wish to harm.

I finally got to feel one of these tonight. It is small, same size as a Walther P22, but I knew that. The feel, safety, and slide lock felt so much better than the P22 however, and the sights were 1000x better. Going to get my hands on a m&p 22 tomorrow and see how that feels.

Whats the point of testing it? Once you "test" it, you better not wear it... You couldn't pay me enough money to stand there and voluntarily shoot someone I don't want to kill, let alone be the one taking the shot.

I almost wish the vest didn't work and he removed himself from the gene pool... What the hell makes people think this is a good idea? Best case, you have a nasty bruise and just wasted 500-1500 on a vest you can never use again. Worst case....

Have you been in a school in the past 20 years? There are no knives in school cafeterias. Lucky they gave us a spork...

Would that not exempt it as it is designed to fire shotgun ammunition?

Actually, under NJ law it's a handgun, not a shotgun, so there is no reason I can see for it to be illegal. What is the difference between this and a 45LC/.410 revolver?

I really like firefox, mainly because there are so many add-ons for it. I don't know what I would do without AdBlock+, NoScript, HTTPS everywhere, and the youtube video downloader, plus probably a few more I can't remember right now.