ryan_j

True. They ask for ID. I hand them my driver license which is my ID. Then one employee specifically asks for my FID.

I sent off a note to corporate. Next time I go there I'm going to see the manager. However, the times in the past when I've contacted HQ in Arkansas they communicated with the store managers who called me and made things right. The last issue was sales tax on yarn. Basically in NJ they're not supposed to collect sales tax on raw material for clothing. We have triplets and my wife knits a lot of stuff for them and getting the tax off saved a few bucks...

Store and corporate policy is to ask for a DL. This is in PA.

I live in the NY/NJ/PA tri-state area in sussex county, and Wal-mart in Milford PA is where I do a lot of shopping. Yeah, it's wal-mart, I know. I usually buy ammo there without a problem. But lately one employee has been asking for my FID and comparing both the DL and FID before he sells me the (pistol) ammo. Wal-Mart asks for your DL, and this policy I know. But I've never been asked for a FID card until recently. I asked if it was a policy, and he said, "yes, anything pistol." Here's the interesting part. Another friend who also lives in NJ (the same town as me actually) goes and buys pistol ammo and is never asked for his FID. Yet another from NJ goes there, deals with the same employee behind the gun counter and never gets asked for his FID when buying pistol ammo. I bought ammo in other states, and apart from CT I've never been asked for anything other than a driver license (which I know is the Wal-Mart policy). So I have to ask you guys, have you ever been asked for your FID when buying ammo at Wal-Mart? I don't mind showing it but since my two friends aren't asked for it, I am wondering why they are singling me out. I hate to scream "discrimination" but the fact is that my two friends are white and I am not. It may or may not be discrimination, but everything seems to add up. If it is, then I don't know how I would feel about that. I'm a tax paying, law abiding US citizen that just wants to be treated equally. I don't always carry my FID with me as I don't want to dog ear it (even though it's laminated) and it's too big to fit in my wallet. Sometimes I go with the family shopping and I might see some ammo and want to pick up a box... if I don't have a FID then I can't buy the ammo. It just seems wrong that my friends are not asked and I am.

I don't remember a recent attack by the bloods, but there was some guy who took a gun from a security guard and then shot and killed a cop. The bloods then threatened retaliation to shoot more cops but it is unclear whether they actually followed up on this.

One or two are attorneys who practice appellate law.

Maybe because they bribe enough of the right crooked cops to look the other way? Not saying every cop is crooked, but for sure there ARE crooked cops who will take bribes.

I have a feeling we'll hear something soon, given that Palmer relied heavily on the reasoning in Peruta. Some are suggesting that the motion to intervene and en banc petitions may have been decided, but the court hasn't issued them yet.

We just passed a privacy law last year. Nobody except law enforcement (and you) is supposed to know you have or want a gun permit or any kind. Contacting references should be illegal. I know PA law is different but PA passed a similar privacy law and in a settlement with Philadelphia and they agreed not to contact nor require references because it violated the privacy law. So maybe we should be looking into a similar lawsuit. We have had successes on this front, with Perez and McGovern being two recent cases. I would really love for the reference requirement to go away.

Uh oh.

For me training is about new perspectives and it is also fun. I enjoy training on the range and even in a classroom (eg MAG 20). You learn so much from people who have not only trained but have real world experience. For example, GFH has bill fearon from NJSP teaching classes now.

I am probably a target because of where I work. HR on occasion has told us to not wear our ID badges in public, especially when there are angry protesters outside the building.

I talk to other people. Just today I invited a coworker to the range.

I know states have gradually been issuing rulings about this. PA issued a similar ruling about this. But this was already part of a SCOTUS decision so the states are just falling in line.

Maybe because some people aren't aware just how bad it is. I've been spending time in other states and their attitudes to guns and gun culture is a complete 180.

I don't know why people don't get this.

I am totally with you. I'm just pointing out how ludicrous any argument that LE and COs should be treated differently is, due to real or perceived danger because there are many civilians who live under danger daily.

Why bother? It limits your options. The Utah course gets you Utah and qualifies you for a bunch of others. NRA FIRST steps can get you Florida and others.

Didn't actual assassinations happen outside of DC? Wasn't Kennedy assassinated in Texas? Also I LOL at the fact that they think that they can create a bubble around DC when shall-issue Alexandria, VA is just a metro ride away.

Didn't the US Supreme Court already rule on this? All that NJSC is doing is falling in line with that ruling.

Don't waste your money. There are so many better options in NJ with real instructors. You might even learn a thing or two.

Peruta is somewhere along the chain too and this decision cited the reasoning.

I hope it pisses off the judge sufficiently to not grant another stay and just leave it "open" until they come up with a proper law. or better yet, strike down "may-issue" which could go up the chain. Remember too that Congress has to review the law. I don't think they'll like a Maryland style law.

Yep, I have a house a a bit of acreage so when I'm home I'm often outside doing stuff. Always have one on me. Can't run inside to get it from the safe...

I think most of you are second guessing DC. I am willing to bet that they will end up with a law like illinois. It will require training but be shall-issue. It will restrict carry in certain places and allow business owners to put up signs with the force of law. I sure hope they don't ban carry on the metro but I can see them doing that. Also, chief Lanier made a statement that she is not really worried about street crime, that she is more worried about "dignitaries." It is Washington, DC after all. But reading between the lines, she seems to be saying, "we can deal with this" and not, "blood in the streets." This is completely unlike McCarthy in Chicago who unloaded on the NRA and everyone else, and said that firearms are dangerous in public, period, fully jumping on the "blood in the streeeeeeettttttssss!!!" bandwagon. Remember that Lanier also has the ear of the mayor and city council. She's an important stakeholder and they're not going to just dismiss her. She sounds kinda reasonable, and the fact that she immediately complied with the ruling, AND gave people who carried a grace period to get out of the city without prosecution is pretty telling. She might be open to this... http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/security-not-street-crime-at-risk-after-gun-ruling-dc-police-chief-cathy-lanier-says/2014/07/30/f8b17e1c-1808-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html