Qel Hoth

I was awake but I had headphones on... Can't even hear someone 5 feet away.

I've been going to Firing Line in Philly for the past 2 weeks. Probably going to go there again tomorrow and join. $100 for the year, no range fee, $10 rental, have to use their ammo, which isn't a problem for me until I go buy something. Even so, $3.50 for a box of .22 isn't horrible, and I can afford to go once a week. Once I get my FID and a weapon, I'll be looking for an outdoor range, especially if I do get a centerfire rifle. Probably either Fort Dix or SJSC, since they are the closest. I'm supposed to get fingerprinted tomorrow, but I was stupid at work a few days ago and was rewarded with a 1.5" long, 1/16" deep cut on my thumb... Tried to grab a box when I dropped it, cardboard cuts are nasty. Hopefully they still take me.

That was my point. You will get arrested, but the law is written in a way that implies they are legal to own so long as you can provide a reason.

Could you quote the part that allows them to detain US citizens and legal aliens? In the version of the NDAA in the Library of Congress I have been unable to find it. The only section I've found that relates to the military detaining people specifically says taht it does not apply to US citizens and legal aliens.

You need to quote the whole sentence. Would imply that these knives and other weapons are not banned, but only banned if the person cannot give an explainable reason to have them.

We really need to have a judge rule that the "without explainable lawful purpose" clause is unconstitutionally vauge. Either an object should be illegal or it should be legal. To me, target practice (recreation) is an explainable lawful purpose for posession of a slingshot, "I need to open boxes and cut string/rope" is an explainable lawful purpose for possession of any blade. To a judge and jury? I, and nobody else here, has any idea of what would constitute an "explainable lawful purpose." If the state wishes to not outright ban, but restrict possession of these objects, they should have to prove that one intends to use it for an unlawful purpose.

No, there is no way to remove a judge because of his/her rulings, only if they are convicted of certain crimes can they be impeached. And, IMO, thats the way it should be. The purpose of the judicial system is to prevent the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. If judges could be removed because their rulings do not agree with the position of the majority, the courts would be incapable of protecting the rights of the minority.

It's never too cold, you can always add more shirts/sweathers/coats and heavier gloves, insulated boots. But when its hot there's only so much you can take off...

The ammo was remington golden bullets, so lrn not HP. As far as the other stuff, it was the range's gun and they only gave me one mag, so not much I can do about that.

Will be in the market for a .22lr handgun once my FID and P2P arrive, trying to decide between this, M&P 22, and a full caliber handgun with a 22LR conversion (likely a 1911 or Baretta 92). It may have been me, bad magazine, or a dirty gun (range gun), but I put about 200 rounds through a P22 last week and every single time it jammed on the last round. I would say that 90% of the time it tipped the round up, almost like a stovepipe, but the rim usually stayed in the magazine. The rest of the time the slide just didn't go comepletely forward.

This would seem to not be the case. I can think of a few NJ DLs I have seen within the past 6 months that had a PO box as the address. It is certainly rare, but there must be a way it is possible.

We may not need them to, A886 would expand our castle doctrine to include an occupied vehicle and immunity from civil liability if it passes.

Here is the form that the applicant fills out. I will post the form the CHPD mails to next of kin when it arrives.

I don't think anyone is saying that they WOULDN'T use a spouses gun for self defense. The debate in question is entirely logical, not practical. However, under 2C:58-3, I would still argue that it would be illegal for one's spouse to possess the other spouse's weapon. Picking a weapon up off the ground would most certainly fall under "or otherwise aquire," and if such weapon is a handgun, it is illegal to aquire without first having a permit to purchase. So, unless you go through the FTF transfer process it would still be illegal to handle a spouse's long arm. And if you DO go through the FTF it would be illegal for the original owner to handle the firearm. Now, I highly doubt that even in NJ a weapon that is legally present in a house which is used by a person who would otherwise be permitted to own and use weapons of his or her own in the same place, and such use is justified by the courts, would be charged under 2C:58-3. However, the possibility is present.

I'm sorry, but you can not. 2C:39-6e does NOT exempt you from the prohibitons in 2C:39-3, or any other statute than 2C:39-5b, c, or d. If you get caught with anything falling under 2C:39-3a (destructive devices), b (sawed-off shotguns), c (silencers), d (defaced firearms), h (stun guns), j (large capacity magazines), or 2C:39-5f (assault firearms) to include 2C:39-1w(5), you will be going to jail, and you will lose any appeal. (2C:39-1w(5) constructive possession of an AW - possesing a standard AR lower with a) a collaspable stock or b) an AR upper with 1) A threaded barrel 2) a flash supressor 3) a bayonet lug 4) a grenade launcher so long as you posses a lower, a stock, and an upper, with either the stock or upper meeting a) or b) above. It is irrelevant that these parts may not be on the same gun, or even if they are assembled into a weapon. If you possess a non-pistol grip AR with a flash suppressor upper, and that upper is compatible with a standard AR lower you also posses, you constructively posses an AW per AG guidelines as you possess parts to readily assemble an AW.

For the first part, I do believe there is a clause in the statutes that grants you immunity from any criminal charges for possessing a prohibited weapon, or from possessing a weapon outside of the exemptions, provided that you came into possession of the weapon by removing it from an agressor. However, I can't seem to find the statute at the moment. As for the second part, you are correct. They could not charge you under 2C:39-5c (1) or (2), Unlawful possesion of a rifle or shotgun (1), or Unlawful possesion of a loaded rifle or shotgun (2), because 2C:39-6e states that 2C:39-5c does not apply in one's home. However, you could, and will, be charged under 2C:39-3b Prohibited Weapons - Sawed-off shotguns. Either way both are 3rd degree crimes, so you will probably get the same sentence.

We already have Castle doctrine, in our homes. A886 would expand it to include an occupied vehicle (carjacking), and it also turns self defense from an affirmative defense into something that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is NOT the case. Also, it grants civil immunity, provided the use of force is justified.

I may be wrong, but I believe that Florida's castle law provides for immunity from civil liability if the force was justified.

They can handle and fire your weapon provided you meet certain criteria. 1) You must be present 2) You must reasonably beleive (or rather, you must have no reason to suspect otherwise) that they are not a prohibited person. 3) They must be 18 or older. The relevant statute is 2C:58-3.1

Law and logic, in NJ especially, seldom accompany one another.

I guess I'll jump in here. While 2C:39-6 does say you can possess ANY gun in your home, it is not the ONLY law in the statutes that applies to firearms. Also, 2C:39-6 only exempts you from 2C:39-5, not 2C:58. So, while you couldn't be charged with unlawful posession under 2C:39-5b/c, you CAN be charged under 2C:58-3.1. They are two completely different statutes and 2C:39-6 does not exempt from the transfer requirements of 2C:58. Whether or not it would ever happen is a different story. I highly doubt any prosecutor would try someone under illegal transfer for an otherwise good shoot, but he could. In short, while the possession (and use) of another's firearm in your house is not illegal, the manner in which you came into possession (the transfer) is illegal.

Yes, hollow points are legal for range, hunting, and any other exemption provided in 2C:39-6f

Nope, hollow points are illegal to posses in NJ without falling under one of the exemptions.

Did anyone see any differences between S104, and S269? I read through them quickly last night but I couldn't see any differences. Sadly even if one of the carry bills is passed, it would still be illegal to have hollow points loaded in your CCW weapon. Does NJ consider the hollow point rounds that have a polymer insert in the tip to still be "hollow nose?" (Hornady Critical Defense and others) http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/hornady2.gif

You can, in what, 45+ other states?