HBecwithFn7

Nah... Too old, too bulky, too "high maintenance..."

And that's perfectly fine. As long as you're also willing to take personal responsibility for owning/possessing/using them without training or knowledge of the laws needed to avoid any legal issues... I know.... I know.... "those laws are 'unjust/unconstitutional' ". And I agree that many if not most of them are... But, until we can change them, we either need to obey them, or be willing to accept the consequences of not obeying them. In either case, I'd think we should, at least, *know* them.

Well, I was focusing on "firearms" when I said that, but.... But an interesting point... Assuming based on 2A rights that we could possess, own, use, etc. *any* weapons, training or not, what would you want to possess/own? And, I'm not limiting it to what we currently have "on the table" in this country. I mean "military," NFA, anything... What would you want to own? I'm probably not thinking as big as most of you, but my list would certainly include: 1) Classic M-16 full auto; 2) MAC 10/11 Full Auto (probably 9mm); 3) Tac Ops Bravo-51 (.308 Winchester) for sniper competitions; 4) Barret M82A1 (.50BMG) for the challenge of shooting it accurately; 5) Colt LE6920 with collapsible stock (.223) I don't see the need (for myself) for things like RPG's or Nukes, or SMAWs, or whatever..... but maybe a nice Sherman Tank....

That's fair enough.... as long as they're also willing to accept the consequences for not getting that training...for not knowing everything they *should* know....

Quite correct, and I do stand corrected. You could also cover children under the "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our 'posterity'... " clause. No, it is not. From the moment the kid pops out, "it's on..." (actually, a little before that). And it doesn't stop until they're self-sufficient.

This wouldn't be "accidental" or "fast/direct." This would be a pondered, conscious decision on the part of the parents to exercise their religion and accept the risk/consequences of doing so. Like I say.... just because it's a "constitutional right" doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities." FTR, I freely admit I'm not a practitioner of any variety of "faith healing." I believe too strongly in the power of medicine and science. That said, I would certainly support any "adult's" right to practice it, if that's their choice. The more pertinent question is, do parents have the right to make that choice on their children's behalf? Does any child's "right to life" supersede parental rights in re: how the child is raised? I also admit I'm not a parent, either, but I would more than likely lean towards the child's right to life as the greater priority here. Among our "constitutional rights" is the very fundamental right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hard to do when your parents make a decision for you that gets you dead, religious or otherwise. But again, this isn't denying/abridging anyone the right to free speech or religion. This is allowing the free exercise of it, but accepting the societal consequences of doing so, should something go wrong (i.e. fall out for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater).

So, since it is a "constitutional right," would you favor anyone being able to possess, use, carry concealed, etc. any weapon with no training at all? Would you allow your children said access to weapons without any training or supervision? Or allow them to be around other children that possess weapons without proper training? Freedom of Speech and Religion can't "accidentally" get innocent people dead... not directly, anyway. It's not like I'd get up in public one day and say "Religion 'X' sucks," and then get struck by a bolt of lightning and die instantly! OTOH, A weapon, in the hands of the untrained, unknowing individual can get innocent people dead, a whole lot faster and more directly than free Speech and/or Religion. Of course, the RKBA is a constitutional right. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities..." personal, If, no other. Free speech is a constitutional right, but there are consequences for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I believe those intent on exercising their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms (like myself, BTW) should take the "personal" responsibility to be trained on their use, and to keep them safe from those who are not trained in them or aren't yet old enough to possess them, or cannot due to being a "prohibited" person. And no one should possess those weapons unless/until they are old enough, and trained enough... I don't think that unfairly denies or abridges that constitutional right one iota. I'm not saying they can't *ever* possess/use weapons,etc., I'm just saying, "get the proper training for them," and "agree to take personal responsibility for them." And, in the case in re: this thread, it also means "knowing all the laws you need to know." Unjust or not, they're still laws that are currently in effect until they are changed and, until changed, we either must obey them, or be willing to accept the consequences for disobeying them.

I shot a Nano once. Didn't like it. Harder to control than a Shield, which I like and own.

Then she shouldn't be allowed to possess any guns, much less carry them concealed. I realize that sounds very cold, considering her history as a victim, and her upstanding citizenship, but there's much more at stake here. Every time a gun owner screws up, it affects us all. It gets plastered all over the MSM, and adds a whole lot more fuel to the anti's fire. They start even more talk of gun control. Is it right? Absolutely not. But it's the way it goes around here. I truly believe in the RKBA, and the right to carry where I need to for self defense or other reasons. But with that right comes responsibility... including following all the rules... if only to prevent the anti's from claiming that we don't, and that more "control" is needed as a result. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Did I (or Do I) know every law I should to be able to possess and/or carry my guns in all the places where I can legally? Absolutely not. But I know enough of the law to stay out of trouble. I know how I need to store my guns in my house, or wherever I have them legally, or I never have them there. I know how to transport them, both in my state and "interstate" under FOPA. And, I know enough not to possess/carry them where I don't yet know the law. It's pretty intuitive, really. To be totally honest, even though I have CCW permits in 3 states, I don't carry in any of them, because I don't yet consider myself sufficiently trained to do so. I need a lot more training, not only in CCW laws of the states where I might carry but, more fundamentally, in things like "use of deadly force" laws (when/where can I draw/shoot etc.), I'll get there, but until that day... Now, on this, we absolutely agree. The potential punishment does *not* fit the crime, in this case. And I'm wondering what the bug is up the AG's six over her (i.e that he refuses to offer PTI). I think the AG is making a huge mistake in making her "the example." A single mom... a "model citizen" etc. etc.??? She'll become a martyr, and the AG will look like an idiot. Done. Got ya covered on all of this. But, as I say, "realistic/effective." Eventually, this may work, but I doubt it will happen in NJ in what's left of my lifetime. So whatever life I have left will be in a place where I have the most "realistic/effective" freedom, ASAP.

That helps with question 24. But I think the greater concern is question 26 - the "catch all" question. If any applicant, even as a minor, was seen or treated by a doctor for any "psychiatric condition" (which may not necessarily be a "defined" illness/disorder), they might have to answer "yes," here. For example, an ADHD kid that gets put on Ritalin but goes off of it when they graduate HS... Now I have no idea how the authorities could verify that (unless the HS psychiatric records are forwarded to the "county adjustor's office," or somehow they were able to acquire the pharmacy records), but I'm thinking that the LE depts are counting on the fear of being caught in a falsehood for the true answers to that question... And of course, any dept. that's "anti" would immediately use that for "denial."

Be that as it may, the law is still the law until changed, and she should have known it before entering the state with a concealed weapon. Just because we feel (as I do, with you, in this case) a law is "unjust" does not excuse us from knowing it or obeying it, while it is in effect... or, be willing to pay the price for violating it, if you choose, because it is "unjust." I've worked way too hard for the CCWs and other permits I have, only to have them (and my liberty) wiped away at the stroke of a gavel. Sorry.. not gonna happen. Nothing / no one indoctrinates me... not even you! As stated, I agree it's an unjust law. But let's be realistic here. What can any of us do to change these laws, given the numbers in NJ of both strong "anti-gun" people/politicians and the "majority," who either don't care or are "sheeples" and do what the MSM and the politicians giving them doll outs tell them to do... as well as even the "pro-2As/owners" that choose not to get involved, unless it affects them directly? I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and make them all go away. But I don't have one of those. All I have is my one vote, and my one voice, and a few $$$ all of which I do use (I have already brought 3 people to the range that had not been there before, and all now wish to get training). But I also have a life to live and bills to pay, and I can't do that effectively if I'm in jail. As distasteful as it is to me, I will be learning these laws, and obeying them until changed, or until I'm no longer affected by them (i.e. moved away from NJ). I'm thinking the latter will be much more attainable in my lifetime... Well, if you can offer a realistic/effective way to change it, I'm all for it.

Welcome from Warren County!

Could the delay be the county adjustor's office itself (i.e. mental health service), not necessarily the fact that it's delivered electronically vs, "hard copy?" In a busy county, it could take a while...

The problem is (with this poll), both sides might want to have a case heard. The better question would be, "how do you think the court should rule???"

Funny you mention that. That's *exactly* what I had to do the very first time I ever bought fuel for the first car I ever owned with my first oil CC. Granted, it was the "City of Chicago" and it was in the early 80's when "carbon" credit card slips were still used..... but no one else after that time, even in that city, asked for my DL. The Plate tag, yes, but not the DL.

Then, perhaps, that *is* part of the problem. Perhaps, she honestly didn't know... although some things just seem so "intuitive." At least she knew enough to be honest with the LEO and declare the concealed weapon. Had she not, I'm thinking it would have gone much worse for her. I took the "Multi-State" CCW course at the Quinton Sportsmen's club. I do recall that it was mentioned several times to "know the laws of all states where you intend to possess, own, rent, transport, carry, use etc. etc." any firearm. We were shown examples of how to look up the laws on usacarry.com and hangunlaw.us. If Philly is not requiring a training class with this level of detail, then it should. I would think they'd want to do that, so that someone like this lady could not bring legal action against the city for failure to prepare her adequately for the responsibilities of carrying her weapon so close to a state that has these restrictions.

Well, that's how "FOX" is spinning it. I'd wonder how the other MSM stations will spin it, if they even cover it. More than likely, it will be "Gun owner 'F's' up.. We need more Gun control!"

I'm surprised they'd permit you to have a "Non driver ID" if you have a DL in another state. Do you mean the "State ID" that is issued by the "Motor Vehicle Commission?" The one that people get when they want a State ID but don't drive? I would have thought you can only get a State ID or Driver's License in your "primary domicile" state.... and that if one attempts to get more than one, it "catches up" with them, eventually...

I would hope, then, that awareness of more stricter States/laws would be part of any CCW training program. Have a pre-class "homework exercise" or something where they are instructed to go on "usacarry.com" or "handgunlaw.us" and look up the laws in a given state, just for the practice of doing it (i.e. "Find the State/entity with the strictest gun laws"). Give a class reward for the people who come up with the "correct answer" (Dist. of Columbia ---> New York --> New Jersey, etc.). I know a lot of my friends in FL are gobsmacked with all the laws we have up here. I recently showed them the big orange Nappen book, and they couldn't believe it. But most of them would, likely, never set foot in NJ, either.... so no issue. I truly wish this young lady well. Hopefully, Evan can help her avoid the brunt of what's coming. And, hopefully, she'll be able to keep her Philly permit. But that might be too much to ask/expect.

Yeah, it's not worth the time/effort to try and DOD wipe these. Physical destruction is the best alternative. Maybe you could "degauss" them, but that's not guaranteed either. Industrial strength shredder is the answer. When you say "case," do you mean the whole "desktop" case, or the HD case (i.e. remove just the platter assemblies)? I buy generic desktop cases so all I have to do is replace the guts. I might also have to replace the LED switch lights, etc. on occasion, but... I was thinking it might make it easier on the "shredding" if the platter assemblies were removed and shredded separately. Sort of like taking an HD Floppy, breaking it apart, and shredding the thin micro film disk portion.

Nope.... "Double Jeopardy..." Now, they might try a civil action, but that's a different issue. Or they might attempt to get her Philly permit revoked (not sure how successful they'd be), or something like that.

Absolutely! I've been there before. And it's close to I-78. The perfect place to stop of after a session at HG Easton...

Unfortunately, I think the State's jury consultants would be looking for that, and for us.... They'll have that "peremptory challenge hammer" out in real force. I recall a while back a thread here on whether or not one might be asked about 2A rights and gun ownership in "voire/dire." I think this would be the very trial where those questions would be asked.

Evan Nappen is taking her case. He discussed it yesterday on GFH Radio.

Any that I may or may not own would be enjoying a nice well deserved vacation in Sunny Florida in my storage locker.