OK I'll give you that one. Truth be told I would not place a wager on any form of national reciprocity passing the senate and I'm a gambling man.

I do try to make smart wagers and I wouldn't consider that a smart wager.

10 minutes ago, brucin said:

OK I'll give you that one. Truth be told I would not place a wager on any form of national reciprocity passing the senate and I'm a gambling man.

I do try to make smart wagers and I wouldn't consider that a smart wager.

Bet with your heart 

52 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Not yet Mr. Happy!

You are technically incorrect..

?

1 minute ago, 1LtCAP said:

?

He has a resident...

4 minutes ago, Zeke said:

He has a resident...

aahh

 

Just now, 1LtCAP said:

aahh

 

Light dawns... Good for Mr. happy. Him and his wife good people!

3 hours ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Sadly I do not know why it is so hard to comprehend that you will never be allowed to carry in NJ.

 

Thinking that this is some majuc bullet is foolhardy 

The only real solution is to LEAVE nj

We r the minority and everyone else takes precedence but the law abiding hard working citizen

nickjc 

? Seriously?

I wish our "standard bearer" for NJ gun rights and our NRA affiliate the ANJRPC would post some kind of update on their web site about whats going on with this and notify the senate that the bill needs some adjustments so ALL Americans can benefit from this bill.   One would think that with all  the firearm attorneys on staff there and with the closest chance Americans living in NJ are ever going to have at restoring our RIGHTS  we would read about updates on their website?   

@ revenger –At the risk of being optimistic there may be some arm twisting going on behind closed doors and they don’t want to disclose too much at this point otherwise the libs may try to torpedo the effort.

4 hours ago, JackDaWack said:

So why are you wasting your time here typing about failures that have yet to take place? Why aren't you busy packing your bags and leaving?

Packing and planning...

 

That's the plan....u can rationalize all u want....just as I am sure understand....whether u want to admit it or not.....nj is a shit sandwich 

5 hours ago, Zeke said:

If ya wanna move, jus move! Why I gotta hear bout it?

Why?

 

Because at times the shite is so thick you can cut it with a fork.  Stop trying to make a sundae out of shit....

 

Understand I am with you and want to be positive and optimistic  ....but it is always someone somewhere trying to eff the good ones over 

Nickjc 

and that’s jus weird 

Skinny on da street:

Mitch may be forced to act on this..

And the guys that are saying this will never pass are the same ones that said HR 38 would never pass.... and it passed

jus sayen 

2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Skinny on da street:

Mitch may be forced to act on this..

And the guys that are saying this will never pass are the same ones that said HR 38 would never pass.... and it passed

jus sayen 

To paraphrase someone on this forum:  you gotta sauce for that pasta?

1 minute ago, voyager9 said:

To paraphrase someone on this forum:  you gotta sauce for that pasta?

It’s called gravy .. jus sayen 

1 minute ago, Zeke said:

It’s called gravy .. jus sayen 

*sigh*. Fine. Do you have a sauce for that gravy?

It’s not going to be a panacea for us

On 12/7/2017 at 6:59 PM, brucin said:

I have a CCW issued to me by a state I reside in. How am I not covered?

Because the law doesn't apply to your state of residence. IF you claim residence in say FL, and own land here, you might be good. However if you declare NJ here, despite maintaining a second residence in FL, you would be boned by my reading. 

Beyond that, NJ may decide to play fast and loose with the definition of a resident if faced with such legislation.

If you are just visiting and live elsewhere, you would be covered for whatever that means. 

Interesting analysis on chances for Senate passage:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2017/12/reciprocity-passed-house-but-will-it.html

34 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

Because the law doesn't apply to your state of residence. IF you claim residence in say FL, and own land here, you might be good. However if you declare NJ here, despite maintaining a second residence in FL, you would be boned by my reading. 

Beyond that, NJ may decide to play fast and loose with the definition of a resident if faced with such legislation.

If you are just visiting and live elsewhere, you would be covered for whatever that means. 

I purchase handguns in the state that issued my CCW. I've done it several times. That according to the ATF makes me a resident of that state. My permit and my state issued ID have the same address not my NJ address. If I show my CCW and my photo ID from my other state of residence I don't see how I'm not a resident of that state.

I reside in both houses just at different times of the month.

NJ may try to play fast and loose with what qualifies as a resident but I don't see that flying in court.

Where I file taxes should not matter either as I've paid income taxes in both states and you can't use a tax return as ID.

8 minutes ago, DirtyDigz said:

Interesting analysis on chances for Senate passage:

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2017/12/reciprocity-passed-house-but-will-it.html

I would agree with that quick analysis and politics behind differences in voting between 2011 and 2017. Bottomline, most of them are not sincere about passing it, but will play games to "appear" to support depending on which way wind blows. No surprises in the conclusion there. 

The way I read it is that if your state does not offer CCW for it's people, residents of that state can't CCW. New Jersey DOES offer CCW to it's citizens! The bill does not speak as to how hard each state's requirements are. Be they slaal issue or may issue is not the point. NJ does in fact issue! NJ would have to become the first state with "No Issue" and cancel Sweeney's permit to take advantage of this loophole!

This is the way I see it. If the bill passes, we carry!

 

The way I read it is that if your state does not offer CCW for it's people, residents of that state can't CCW. New Jersey DOES offer CCW to it's citizens! The bill does not speak as to how hard each state's requirements are. Be they slaal issue or may issue is not the point. NJ does in fact issue! NJ would have to become the first state with "No Issue" and cancel Sweeney's permit to take advantage of this loophole!
This is the way I see it. If the bill passes, we carry!
 

That is correct and every State now offers CCW.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Because the law doesn't apply to your state of residence. IF you claim residence in say FL, and own land here, you might be good. However if you declare NJ here, despite maintaining a second residence in FL, you would be boned by my reading. 

Beyond that, NJ may decide to play fast and loose with the definition of a resident if faced with such legislation.

If you are just visiting and live elsewhere, you would be covered for whatever that means. 

Under S446 and HR38 that is incorrect

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

21 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

The way I read it is that if your state does not offer CCW for it's people, residents of that state can't CCW. New Jersey DOES offer CCW to it's citizens! The bill does not speak as to how hard each state's requirements are. Be they slaal issue or may issue is not the point. NJ does in fact issue! NJ would have to become the first state with "No Issue" and cancel Sweeney's permit to take advantage of this loophole!

This is the way I see it. If the bill passes, we carry!

 

Unfortunately the way it’s written...S446

@brucin is g2g. His permit says resident.

 

My friend, I’m a resolute optimist with this stuff. After reconciliation we’ll  see.... Regardless it’s a move in the right direction.

20 hours ago, capt14k said:

Under S446 and HR38 that is incorrect

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

For S446

" may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that—"

I read this to mean that if you are a resident of two states by any legal definition, S446 would not apply to you in either of those states. INstead, within those states, you would have to abide by the laws governing the residents of said states. 

 

For HR38, I agree that the wording means that unless NJ goes no issue, they would have to accept an out of state resident permit from another state or an in state permit from another state for someone who can legally be regarded as a resident of multiple states. 

I'm not seeing how you can parse 446 to permit that. 

For S446 " may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that—"

I read this to mean that if you are a resident of two states by any legal definition, S446 would not apply to you in either of those states. INstead, within those states, you would have to abide by the laws governing the residents of said states. 

 

For HR38, I agree that the wording means that unless NJ goes no issue, they would have to accept an out of state resident permit from another state or an in state permit from another state for someone who can legally be regarded as a resident of multiple states. 

I'm not seeing how you can parse 446 to permit that. 

 

 

That only refers to interstate commerce. Meaning if a firearm is made in NJ and sold in NJ it's not covered under the interstate commerce clause. So you couldn't carry such a firearm. Same thing with ballistic knives. Federally illegal. However if made in NH and sold in NH to NH resident and kept in NH they are legal. Keep reading and you will see why you are we covered. Also need to read the paragraph before. A State means any state.

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

For S446

" may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual that—"

I read this to mean that if you are a resident of two states by any legal definition, S446 would not apply to you in either of those states. INstead, within those states, you would have to abide by the laws governing the residents of said states. 

 

For HR38, I agree that the wording means that unless NJ goes no issue, they would have to accept an out of state resident permit from another state or an in state permit from another state for someone who can legally be regarded as a resident of multiple states. 

I'm not seeing how you can parse 446 to permit that. 

If your permit says you’re a resident.... you’re a resident... it’s that simple. Don’t confuse with 6 month rule for taxes..

2 minutes ago, capt14k said:

That only refers to interstate commerce. Meaning if a firearm is made in NJ and sold in NJ it's not covered under the interstate commerce clause. So you couldn't carry such a firearm. Sane thing with ballistic knives. Federally illegal. However if made in NH and sold in NH to NH resident and kept in NH they are legal. Keep reading and you will see why you are covered.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. While I agree that the use of commas, or lack of same, makes it potentially ambiguous from a straight up grammar perpspective, the state of residence can refer to either 

1) the origin of the gun, but if it never left the state of residence of the individual, it was not moved in interstate commerce or imported, so why include the condition on an object that can't be included in the described items. 

2) the status of the individual. Which makes perfect sense. You are in your state of residence under your state law makers, interstate commerce doesn't cover your legal relationship with the state. 

I'm not the only one parsing it that way. 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/johannes-paulsen/read-constitutional-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-2017/

 

 

I'm going to have to disagree with you. While I agree that the use of commas, or lack of same, makes it potentially ambiguous from a straight up grammar perpspective, the state of residence can refer to either 

1) the origin of the gun, but if it never left the state of residence of the individual, it was not moved in interstate commerce or imported, so why include the condition on an object that can't be included in the described items. 

2) the status of the individual. Which makes perfect sense. You are in your state of residence under your state law makers, interstate commerce doesn't cover your legal relationship with the state. 

I'm not the only one parsing it that way. 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/johannes-paulsen/read-constitutional-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-2017/

 

 

The wording you are looking at is to prevent a challenge to the Federal Law. That is all it is for. Federal Government has power over Interstate Commerce. Do I really have to break this down.

 

 

an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) "that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual" that—

 

Before the parentheses deals with carrying handgun. Valid License Issued pursuant to law of A STATE which permits to CCW, may possess or carry a concealed handgun.

 

The handgun must have been shipped interstate or foreign in a state other than their state of residence. NJ Made Iver Johnson that never left NJ can't be carried in NJ.

 

 

3 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you. While I agree that the use of commas, or lack of same, makes it potentially ambiguous from a straight up grammar perpspective, the state of residence can refer to either 

1) the origin of the gun, but if it never left the state of residence of the individual, it was not moved in interstate commerce or imported, so why include the condition on an object that can't be included in the described items. 

2) the status of the individual. Which makes perfect sense. You are in your state of residence under your state law makers, interstate commerce doesn't cover your legal relationship with the state. 

I'm not the only one parsing it that way. 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/03/johannes-paulsen/read-constitutional-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-2017/

 

 

March 1 2017

its December now.