God your stubborn. I know what what your saying in don't think a jury would ever convict. BUT it is illegal transfer. Saying that if the prosecutor wanted to make an example of the situation the law would give him the right.

God your stubborn. I know what what your saying in don't think a jury would ever convict. BUT it is illegal transfer. Saying that if the prosecutor wanted to make an example of the situation the law would give him the right.

 

OK it is an illegal transfer.. if a couple guys break in and you get the gun away from one.. run as fast as you can.. don't pick it up and break the law...

 

If that is how you feel about it then roll with it.. but don't spread that nonsense to others...

You openly admit it would NEVER see the light of court.. but you insist on arguing the point? to what end..

 

maybe is we spent this much time fighting the ridiculous laws in NJ instead of sitting around arguing about them.. something would change..

 

It is honestly absurd..

 

you KNOW it wont see a day in court.. irregardless of legality.. so what is the end game..

 

I do NOT believe it is illegal..

I do NOT know of a single instance of case law that points to it being illegal..

 

so I stand by my opinion.. hopefully any individual attacked in their home will be of the same mindset.... I would hate to see the doubt that you seem intent creating cause them even a moments hesitation.... I would rather have them know they are acting within the law.. and KNOW that the most important thing is to pick up the weapon and save their lives...

 

MANY people read this site.. more than just who posts...

 

If you dont understand what I am conveying to you.. then you just wont get it..

Vlad,

 

This Noob is some kind of shill or troll, and may not even own a gun. Unfortuneately you don't have to prove competence with firearms to pontificate on a public forum.

 

I don't listen to pod casts either.

 

Take a deep breath and block this %^&*# out of your computer. It's like hitting the "EASY" button @ Staples, lol!

Evan nappan's job is to interpret Nj gun law extrapolated out to it's illogical extreme. He does this to point out the absurdity of the law (which is absurd) I applaud him for his efforts and I applaud Anthony for having gfh radio.

 

However, the law is clear by my literate and thoughtful reading. There is NO duty to retreat in your home. The law says that the individuals right to carry and possess ANY firearm in his home supersedes other subsections of the statute regarding illegal transfer.

 

This being said, I HOPE we are dealing with a troll or a shill. Because such myopic devotion to something that is demonstrably false is unfortunate.

Evan nappan's job is to interpret Nj gun law extrapolated out to it's illogical extreme. He does this to point out the absurdity of the law (which is absurd) I applaud him for his efforts and I applaud Anthony for having gfh radio.

 

However, the law is clear by my literate and thoughtful reading. There is NO duty to retreat in your home. The law says that the individuals right to carry and possess ANY firearm in his home supersedes other subsections of the statute regarding illegal transfer.

 

This being said, I HOPE we are dealing with a troll or a shill. Because such myopic devotion to something that is demonstrably false is unfortunate.

 

Great post Jim! Thanks!

 

Dave

Vlad,

 

This Noob is some kind of shill or troll, and may not even own a gun. Unfortuneately you don't have to prove competence with firearms to pontificate on a public forum.

 

I don't listen to pod casts either.

 

Take a deep breath and block this %^&*# out of your computer. It's like hitting the "EASY" button @ Staples, lol!

Evan nappan's job is to interpret Nj gun law extrapolated out to it's illogical extreme. He does this to point out the absurdity of the law (which is absurd) I applaud him for his efforts and I applaud Anthony for having gfh radio.

 

However, the law is clear by my literate and thoughtful reading. There is NO duty to retreat in your home. The law says that the individuals right to carry and possess ANY firearm in his home supersedes other subsections of the statute regarding illegal transfer.

 

This being said, I HOPE we are dealing with a troll or a shill. Because such myopic devotion to something that is demonstrably false is unfortunate.

 

Well sorry to let you guys down, but no troll here...oh...no shill either.

 

Yes I have 2 guns, so there goes that too.

 

Now...yes I am completely new to this hobby. Don't know much about guns or gun laws, so I'm so sorry that asking there questions pisses people off, but get over it. Because I'm new, I read more than I post so that I can learn.

 

And I stopped posting on this topic as I've already made up my mind and gave her access and made sure she knows how to use both guns. I'd rather she be alive and have to hire someone like Evan, than her be harmed.

Well sorry to let you guys down, but no troll here...oh...no shill either.

 

Yes I have 2 guns, so there goes that too.

 

Now...yes I am completely new to this hobby. Don't know much about guns or gun laws, so I'm so sorry that asking there questions pisses people off, but get over it. Because I'm new, I read more than I post so that I can learn.

 

And I stopped posting on this topic as I've already made up my mind and gave her access and made sure she knows how to use both guns. I'd rather she be alive and have to hire someone like Evan, than her be harmed.

 

 

I am pretty sure they werent talking about you being the troll......

If not ok...sorry...I just know I have A LOT less posts than the other guy :-)

My comment was directed towards Pete2674, NOT the OP!

 

Sorry for any confusion!

Pete is not a troll. He's just confusing Nappen's exaggerated rhetoric for reality. Woodtoe is spot on with his post above. Nappen is merely making an absurd point to show the absurdity of NJ's laws. Personally, I think it does more harm than good. It serves to confuse some people and make them think that every family member needs their own gun for home defense.

 

Another thing: An aggressive prosecution of an illegal transfer for a family member using another family member's gun for a clean home defense shooting would result in exactly the opposite of what NJ would want. It would turn the average person against the State's Draconian gun laws and make it much easier to loosen them. 99% of the NJ citizens would be up in full support for a wife shooting a potential rapist with her husband's gun if she was prosecuted for some absurd transfer within the home law. The prosecutor and laws would be changed rather quickly to remedy that.

Pete is not a troll. He's just confusing Nappen's exaggerated rhetoric for reality. Woodtoe is spot on with his post above. Nappen is merely making an absurd point to show the absurdity of NJ's laws. Personally, I think it does more harm than good. It serves to confuse some people and make them think that every family member needs their own gun for home defense.

 

Another thing: An aggressive prosecution of an illegal transfer for a family member using another family member's gun for a clean home defense shooting would result in exactly the opposite of what NJ would want. It would turn the average person against the State's Draconian gun laws and make it much easier to loosen them. 99% of the NJ citizens would be up in full support for a wife shooting a potential rapist with her husband's gun if she was prosecuted for some absurd transfer within the home law. The prosecutor and laws would be changed rather quickly to remedy that.

 

+1 And thanks for shedding the correct light on this. The "Chicken Little" sky is falling did get a little "old", although I can understand how someone could get confused, for I admitted confusion myself when trying to analize the exceptions and exemptions a few threads ago.

 

Again, my thanks.

 

Dave

Another thing: An aggressive prosecution of an illegal transfer for a family member using another family member's gun for a clean home defense shooting would result in exactly the opposite of what NJ would want. It would turn the average person against the State's Draconian gun laws and make it much easier to loosen them. 99% of the NJ citizens would be up in full support for a wife shooting a potential rapist with her husband's gun if she was prosecuted for some absurd transfer within the home law. The prosecutor and laws would be changed rather quickly to remedy that.

Yes, we should hope for strict interpretation and aggressive prosecution of NJ gun law--that and a little publicity would be the quickest way to rational gun laws.

 

 

Someone breaks into your home, they are threat. Done. See how easy that was.

 

The transfer law was intended to prevent you from loaning out your guns to people that they then take OUTSIDE the home. Really has nothing to do with what a spouse does inside it.

Stated perfectly- these are my thoughts exactly.

 

I tell my wife someone walks in the house - tell them you have a gun(forget the kickboxing), and if they still come at you, point at them and keep pulling the trigger till it stops. One out of the 13 will stop them, and if not, they won't kill you with an empty gun and you can use your licensed kickboxing technique!

 

Stated perfectly- these are my thoughts exactly.

 

I tell my wife someone walks in the house - tell them you have a gun(forget the kickboxing), and if they still come at you, point at them and keep pulling the trigger till it stops. One out of the 13 will stop them, and if not, they won't kill you with an empty gun and you can use your licensed kickboxing technique!

 

 

keep in mind handgun rounds will sail right through most residential walls.. and STILL have enough left on the other side of the wall to cause damage..

 

accountable for every shot fired..

 

 

 

keep in mind handgun rounds will sail right through most residential walls.. and STILL have enough left on the other side of the wall to cause damage..

 

accountable for every shot fired..

 

Agreed- but what if it's HP?

I've been staying out of this one, but have been reading the posts.

 

My only comment is that there seems to be two camps of logic. I think there are good arguments for both sides, with the realistic outcome potentials being somewhere in the middle.

 

1) The literal interpretation of the gun laws to the letter, without any deviation or alternative/creative interpretation (as in these rules must be followed whenever a gun moves to the hands of another person at all times no matter what the situation)

2) The "in the spirit" of the law interpretation, looking at what the laws are trying to accomplish and interpreting them with that in mind (preventing bad people or people who should not own or hold guns from getting access to said guns)