Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

If you take it at literal face value.... You should be able to own any arm at any time without any regulation.... A gang member should be able to walk into the local walmart buy a pallet of full auto AKs and 10k rounds of ammo.....if you think that is reasonable.... If you think its reasonable for a homeless person to leave a gun sitting on a park bench.. Then we are at an impasse....

 

I get the whole shall not be infringed.... And I get that NJ has an abusive unfair system... But I still find things like back ground checks as reasonable.... Some don't.... Some just want anyone (criminals included) to be able to buy any gun at any time.... I disagree with that stance because I don't see the logic in it....

Federal judge.  I remember this has come up several times and each time ti was held that one could use a public space as an address.

 

Hypothetically, this should extend to gun ownership as well.

And you think that is reasonable.....

He gets to keep the gun at his park bench....

 

How many seconds do you think till it is stolen the second he leaves it sitting there for any stretch of time....

The point of this thread "does he have a right to CARRY?"

 

NO not in NJ because in NJ you need a license to carry a gun.... That's the law...

 

Could he hypothetically keep it at his park bench? Maybe... But that's a ridiculous discussion because leaving a gun on a park bench is irresponsible and idiotic.... There is no sane argument about that being a good idea...

And you think that is reasonable.....

He gets to keep the gun at his park bench....

 

How many seconds do you think till it is stolen the second he leaves it sitting there for any stretch of time....

One of the joys of our country.  If a person has a right to use a park bench as their address for voting, that should extend to all rights, not just selected rights.

 

As for keeping it at the bench, etc, I do not believe I ever said it was a good idea or practical, but in a scholarly discussion, if a park bench is a valid address for voting, then it should be a valid address for all other areas where an address is required.

If you take it at literal face value.... You should be able to own any arm at any time without any regulation.... A gang member should be able to walk into the local walmart buy a pallet of full auto AKs and 10k rounds of ammo.....if you think that is reasonable.... If you think its reasonable for a homeless person to leave a gun sitting on a park bench.. Then we are at an impasse....

 

I get the whole shall not be infringed.... And I get that NJ has an abusive unfair system... But I still find things like back ground checks as reasonable.... Some don't.... Some just want anyone (criminals included) to be able to buy any gun at any time.... I disagree with that stance because I don't see the logic in it....

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

Well that's just the point "shall not be infringed" says nothing about gang members... Or types of guns... But through time it has changed...

 

I'm just saying even if you allow someone to use a bench as an address.... There is no logical practical application of that when it comes to firearms.... The reality is he should just go be homeless in a state that allows open carry.... Problem solved...

He should be allowed to own the gun while he is on the park bench. Then if he wants to go to the range, he can go directly to - and directly from the range (as long as he is in a vehicle that he can secure both the gun and the ammo in separate containers in - and not in the glove box). If he is caught anywhere other than his park bench, the range or transporting to and from the range then he should be charged with criminal possession of the firearm.

 

I don't really think that's fair but that is my interpretation of NJ's unjust 2A laws.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why does this seem so crystal clear to me?  The original question was:  Does he have a Second Amendment Right to Carry the handgun?

 

Yes he does!  And that right shall not be infringed no matter where he lives or doesn't live.

NJ permits him to vote in elections and has determined that his home is the park

Where does it say in the Second Amendment that your right is contingent on having a fixed home?

Even if he want to give up the gun, he has to carry it to a place to do that, doesn't he? If he picks it up, he is carrying it, isn't he?

If he is legally permitted to own the gun, which he is, because it was left to him in a will, he has to pick it up, right? Once he picks it up, isn't he carrying it on his person?

In this circumstance, doesn't ownership give him the right to carry it in the park?

Why can he only have it on the park bench? If he is going to use the public restroom in the park, shouldn't he be permitted to take it with him? Leaving on the park bench while he goes to the rest room does not seem like a good idea?

No, in Heller the Court gave guidance on who can and can not own or carry. Gang members by any standard should not be able to own or carry.

 

Leaving the gun on a park bench unattended is a separate  issue.

 

I think that would depend of the definition of a "gang member".

Without a definition, this is open to a lot of assumptions.

 

Does he ride his motorcycle in a group, or is is a full fledged Blood?

If he is not a criminal, I would see no problem with him having a gun.

The point of this thread "does he have a right to CARRY?"

 

NO not in NJ because in NJ you need a license to carry a gun.... That's the law...

 

Could he hypothetically keep it at his park bench? Maybe... But that's a ridiculous discussion because leaving a gun on a park bench is irresponsible and idiotic.... There is no sane argument about that being a good idea...

 

I think this would be a great case cor the ACLU 

He does not have a criminal record. In fact, he is a vet who was honorably discharged from service and has fallen on very hard times.

He does not have a criminal record. In fact, he is a vet who was honorably discharged from service and has fallen on very hard times.

Is this a real case, or a hypothetical situation?

bobblackrifle, on 31 Oct 2013 - 2:17 PM, said:

Its not a "cool" answer, it is Mr Parkers right, and yours and mine. The State of Nj is in violation of the 2A. That is the entire issue.

yea...we know. ALL OF US KNOW

Can't he just carry around a double barrel shotgun!?  JK, JK.

 

He has the right to bear arms but depending on which state he is "residing" he maybe in violation of that particular state's laws.....which are more than likely in violation of the Constitution. 

 

If he lives in NJ he is going to jail.

I agree that it is not his status of being homeless that is important, what is important is that there is no restriction on what place you can make and declare your home to be. If he lives in the park in NJ and votes in NJ then he is a NJ resident. If he is a NJ resident, that means he is residing someplace--  If he has made his home in the park,and resides in the park then that is his home The statute does not restrict the place you declare to be your home. If he lives in the park and that is his home then he should be able to carry his gun in that park. Isn't the Second Amendment a personal right that now applies to all persons, other than minors, criminals and insane people and is not contingent on a person owning or leasing a fixed structure which is a home? Clearly, he cannot carry outside the park without a carry permit in NJ.

If he is not allowed to possess it, then it would be some form of discrimination. 

A homeless person being able to keep a firearm with them without a carry permit is never going to happen in NJ for two reasons:

 

First, It's still a public space whether or not someone lists a park bench as an address or not. The homeless person does not own the bench nor have exclusive right to control it. The exemption in the law regarding carrying states: "about his residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him", a homeless person would have none of these.

 

Second, If this would be ruled to be legal, what would stop any of us from claiming that the same park bench or a public street or every public place is our second or third or forth etc. address, and therefore we would be allowed to carry everywhere? What would stop any of us from claiming a park bench in PA as an address and then being able to buy full auto since we would then be a PA resident?

If he is not allowed to possess it, then it would be some form of discrimination. 

I see potential in your line of thought.  SCOTUS has ruled that requiring people to have ID to vote is unconstitutional based on it representing a burden on a voter without the financial resources to pay the state for a DL or other acceptable ID.  NJs regulations could be viewed in the same light, except we're not talking $20 min every few years for renewal for ID, we're talking thousands of dollars a year for an address that would be accepted by NJs gun laws.

The irony is that our government is committing a crime against our constitutional right by infringing upon our right to bear arms, but saying it's ok to claim a park bench as your residence so that you can vote. Meanwhile he probably has to leave the park at dusk. And I'm about a million percent sure they won't count that bench as his place of residence if he puts it down on a firearms ID application.

 

It's all gone mad!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Federal judge.  I remember this has come up several times and each time ti was held that one could use a public space as an address.

 

Hypothetically, this should extend to gun ownership as well.

A ruling made by a federal judge is only applicable the case he or she is hearing. It is not a "nation wide" ruling. A different judge can rule 180 degrees from this ruling. Ruling he can use a park bench as an address for voting applies to that and that alone. The only court where rulings are nation wide is SCOTUS decisions. However, once again they apply to only what's in the scope of the argument. MacDonald said IL has to institute a carry permit system has no impact on other states.

 

There are other issues regarding gun ownership when you live on a park bench. There are laws requiring you to secure firearms from children. I'm sure these would be considered "reasonable restrictions". Where does he secure his firearm on the park bench. As it is his voting address does that mean he has an expectation of privacy in relation to the park bench? If he puts something in the park bench do police need a warrant to search it? I think not as he doesn't own it, he just lives there amd can use it for a voting address. There are "reasonable restrictions" to just about all your rights and that probably extends to gun ownership if you live on a park bench.

Double post

As a responsible gun owner, this homeless man should realize he cannot secure his firearm nor prohibit access to minors, cannot practice and become proficient, and cannot afford maintenance or ammunition, so he should sell the firearm before taking possession until such time he can excercise his right responsibly.

 

It should never get as far as the courts.

Why does this seem so crystal clear to me?  The original question was:  Does he have a Second Amendment Right to Carry the handgun?

 

Yes he does!  And that right shall not be infringed no matter where he lives or doesn't live.

 

this. 

As a responsible gun owner, this homeless man should realize he cannot secure his firearm nor prohibit access to minors, cannot practice and become proficient, and cannot afford maintenance or ammunition, so he should sell the firearm before taking possession until such time he can excercise his right responsibly.

 

It should never get as far as the courts.

I would think that your could argue that a homeless guy needs a gun more so that someone who lives behind the safety of a locked door.

Why does he have to secure the gun on the park bench? If he has a right to carry it, he can carry it on his person 24/7. He still has a fourth amendment right against illegal searches of his person. Therefore he should be able to "secure"  the gun on his person. If he lived in a house, he could walk around the house 24/7 and carry it, right? There is no requirement that to be able to keep it in your home, you have to practice. Anyway, he claims to be a veteran and put his life on the line for our country, isn't that enough? Lots of these homeless people end up as crime victims because they are on the street and vulnerable, he probably has a greater need to carry then the average person. I am not aware of any requirement that says that in order to own or carry a gun, you have to have money to buy ammo. Maybe he already has some ammo.

Why does he have to secure the gun on the park bench? If he has a right to carry it, he can carry it on his person 24/7. He still has a fourth amendment right against illegal searches of his person. Therefore he should be able to "secure"  the gun on his person. If he lived in a house, he could walk around the house 24/7 and carry it, right? There is no requirement that to be able to keep it in your home, you have to practice. Anyway, he claims to be a veteran and put his life on the line for our country, isn't that enough? Lots of these homeless people end up as crime victims because they are on the street and vulnerable, he probably has a greater need to carry then the average person. I am not aware of any requirement that says that in order to own or carry a gun, you have to have money to buy ammo. Maybe he already has some ammo.

So your okay with this guy sleeping on the park bench as long as his gun is "secured" on his person? Does he have to sleep on the side he"s carrying his gun for it to be secured?

Don't people who camp out, hunt or fish and carry face the same problem? Why is the situation any different?

Don't people who camp out, hunt or fish and carry face the same problem? Why is the situation any different?

 

Well leave out hunting and fishing as you are awake when you're doing that.  The difference in camping is you're not doing that on a park bench.

I would think that your could argue that a homeless guy needs a gun more so that someone who lives behind the safety of a locked door.

 

True – however, if homeless man is in legal possession of a said firearm in a state without or with a strict Castle Doctrine, what is his "reasonable” responsibility to retreat?

 

And if someone sits on the bench, is that a home invasion?

 

(To be clear treating this thread as a 100% hypothetical exercise)