springfieldxds

i don't believe its illegal to lie to a police officer in NJ, it is illegal to lie to a federal officer, anyways if you say you don't have a gun and he finds a gun in your trunk that you re legally transporting, well it doesn't look so good on you best thing is if you get pulled over and the officer asks anything other than that has to do for the reason youre pulled over ie- where are you going?, its best to just say you want to use your right to remain silent, which you have to verbally say in order to be protected by a recent scotus ruling, so dont just stay silent, tell the officer you want to use your right to remain silent

it seems like the fid card serves as a carry permit for long guns so shouldnt that satisfy the federal gun free school zone act? but then again ianal

i think who ever Christie endorses will have a very good chance of being elected governor, NJ loves Christie and hates taxes which blows my minds, we all know the second thing behind gun control that the democrats will do is raise taxes this is not to say Christie will endorse a pro 2a guy, i have a strong feeling Sweeney will get his endorsement

also done

this is all pretty confusing, any chance nj2as or anjrpc will send out an email commenting on this i mean if its true that these "clarifications" will make legal guns illegal after a swipe with a pen, with no means real means of challenge, this cant be constitutional it would just make 1000s of gun owners into felons overnight

basically what the court is saying, is that they didnt rule on the constitutionality of "good cause", the court is merely saying that self defense must be considered "good cause" buy all the countys so "good cause" stays law, but self defense is now considered a "good cause

California or DC will appeal to scotus, looks like this case is going to the top after all

if scotus would just get off their asses and do their job all of this can go away. they don't even have to take all these 2ndA cases all they have to do is say that when it comes to law abiding citizens strict scrutiny must be used in regards to the 2nd Amendment, if they just did that in Heller or McDonald we wouldn't be in this mess, but they're so afraid of breaking away from the norm they refused to grant a constitutional right the scrutiny protection it deserves

ndeed, Defendant Lanier has offered that the Court’s decision “would have a relatively minimal impact on street crime or her department’s ability to police neighborhoods and lock up dangerous criminals who are found carrying guns. ‘Law-abiding citizens that register firearms, that follow the rules, are not our worry.’” Defendant Lanier’s concern appears to remain the security of 5 sensitive places. “My one focus, really, now is going to be security of our dignitaries in those really highly sensitive large events.” Id. Moreover, Lanier . . . said fears were overstated that the end of the carry ban would impede everyday policing by putting thousands of additional guns on the street. Lanier also played down concerns that dangerous criminals could go free if officers cannot detain and charge them for carrying a weapon in public. Criminals, she said, typically do not possess properly registered firearms, meaning they can be charged under other laws not challenged by Scullin’s ruling. ITS AMAZING THAT HE INCLUDED THIS!

so basically 90 days is all they get to write a new law, after that no more stays unless the dc circuit wants to intervene is this right?

i believe you're right that congress wont approve, especially since its so close to elections, but the whole strike down the may issue probably wont be good for us, it could take another 5 years before the district judge releases a simple ruling on may issue, i realy dont want to wait that long lol, but from the judges ruling he definitely wont agree with it and will probably make that crystal clear without having to go through the courts again

http://blogs.rollcall.com/hill-blotter/d-c-officials-plotting-new-course-to-keep-gun-control-intact/ read it ryan, theyre going to try to copy MD laws, i doubt thatll please the judges ruling though

i believe this is the answer you seek

NJ is so corrupt that they now have the supposedly "gun rights activist" believing in the special privileged people, that or all the true freedom believers really did move to PA im not saying a CO shouldnt be allowed to carry, im saying NO BODY should be allowed to carry until the common man is allowed to, no CO, no off duty or retired leo, no judge, no politician, no one, make the law equal for everyone, NJ is the true Animal Farm and they have the people of NJ on their side, including a lot of our supposedly "gun lovers" but i guess its true, why should we be allowed to carry, its just a fad and most of us wont carry anyways so whats the big deal

i think if the grip of the handgun was visible then i believe the search was allowed, not that i agree with this, but i believe anything illegal seen from a visual sweep of the car is grounds to search the car none the less it sets bad precedent, but to be honest i think any superior court would agree with the NJ Supreme court, given the circumstances like reports of shots fired, description of the van where the shots where fired, van found on street where shots were fired, handgun grip sticking out, shell casings not really a poster boy case for unwarranted searches, though scotus doesnt grant much protection when it comes to motor vehicles, i believe plenty of states allow police to search any compartment without a warrant within reach of the driver or passengers for officers safety

http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2014/07/nj_supreme_court_approves_warrantless_search_of_van_in_irvington_gun_case.html didnt see this posted

no wonder we dont have carry here, half of nj gun owners dont think we should be allowed to carry and the other half dont want to put anything useful into the cause besides a 5 dollar donation to anjrpc

"or state in which a person has a valid carry permit" this can easily mean a non resident license and remember she came to these conclusions from the DC AG, shes not doing it to be nice shes doing it to prevent her from being sued or held in contempt

are you serious, there is no law that says in order for a non resident to carry, their gun must be registered along with their ammo do you know why that is? because until Saturday carrying was completely illegal in DC, now with the ruiling unless they add a law like above, there is no law to prosecute non residents for unregistered firearms, lanier knows this, that is why the memo came out, do you really think she cares about being nice to non residents carrying she couldnt care less, she just doesnt want to be sued or held in contempt of court that is the sole reason for the memo, not to be nice to you or me lol

again the law is for residents only, not non residents, a non resident cant register their gun in DC they cant enforce laws that dont exist that is why the memo was out, how is that hard to understand you disagree with me thats fine i couldnt care less, dont carry in DC that is your choice, if im in DC and no stay has been granted ill be more than comfortable carrying that is all im saying goodbye

again just a scenario, not law, lanier can give any scenario she pleases, it does not change 22-4504(a), all police were told to not enforce 22-4504(a) there is no law what so ever that says you need a resident license or you need to be from a state that doesn't issue a license to carry in DC, if laniar came out tomorrow and flat out said that in those words then she would be making up law which wouldnt stick in court, thats not even mentioning there would be no law for people to be prosecuted under because law 22-4504(a) is gone, if you carry without a home license there is no law they can prosecute you under even if they wanted to, not unless they change the laws if its not law its legal.

it does not matter what the cleo thinks you need at all...... all that matters is what 22-4504(a) says and it says nothing about having a license from your home state, lanier can give a memo of someone coming from Australia with a license to own a fully automatic machine gun and being allowed to carry that in DC, it makes no difference or changes to the law plus a non resident cannot register their firearm or ammunition in DC, if they passed a law for that then yes they can enforce it but they cant enforce a law that is not there including registration for non residents which doesnt exist

you said this "The ruling also makes no mention of nullifying the requirement to have firearms and ammunition registered in DC. That is still law. Are your firearms and ammunition registered in DC? No" and i said this " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition" that is all that needs to be said, only residents need to have their firearm and ammunition registered, non residents do not, that is fact right from Guras mouth furthermore DC police were instructed not to enforce 22-4504(a) which says nothing at all about having a permit from your home state, Lanier cant make laws as she please and there is no law in DC that says you need a resident license to carry

also the first part of the memo says they're not enforcing 22-4504(a) they didn't mention anything about any permits, DC did say that they're still enforcing other parts of the law, including felons in possession just as i said im not forcing anyone to carry or saying they should, all im saying is that if this stands the way it is and a stay is denied and i find myself going to DC, i would be more than comfortable ccing thats me personal, im not giving legal advice to anyone

http://alangura.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/07-137-14.pdf please read this again, especially the part that says " at this time, individuals who do not live in the district shall not be charged with unregistered firearms or unregistered ammunition" the judge specifically said ready to use firearms which mean a loaded firearm also the two cases they give are speculation not what the law actually means