-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
New Jersey - You want a LTC you need to train. New Use of Force Interim Training For Private Citizen Concealed Carry
- Thread starter Rockrivr1
- Start date
You sound like a sovereign citizen, the thing is if you are using the roads to drive your car, you need a piece of paper. You are free to drive your vehicle on your own land as much as you want with no paperwork. It's when you are out and interacting with others in the public space you need to pass one of the easiest tests I ever took, one time in your life with not recurrent training.
As someone who spent a crapload of time on the highways of this vast nation, in 6 states, I'd make the argument that getting a driver's license is way, WAY, too easy as it stands.
Boghog1
NES Member
you can use guns on your own land buy you need the paper to use them outside of your property right?
Like you said, the right to bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution.
Using a vehicle where you can do damage to public transit and the general public is completely different from carrying a firearm.
Edit:
To take it another step, I wouldn't be so vehemently against toll roads if you were exempt if you lived within the taxing limits. You pay the taxes there, you get to use the roads free. You drive a 100k lb 18 wheeler, you have to pay the toll, you are doing damage to the roads but don't pay for the road. Toll roads that directly affect the local population, to me, should be banned.
Boghog1
NES Member
travel is enumerated in the constitution too, the founders never expected civilization to get so stupid as to believe travel would be restricted to foot or horse.
This is fun:
Interstate Travel
The right mentioned in the Constitution did away with requiring passports/visas or other permission to cross State lines temporarily and/or permanently, back when it was the 'many states'.
Anything not mentioned directly in the Constitution is a 10th Amendment issue. So, unfortunately, the states get to determine what is 'free' to do with 'traveling'. I don't agree with just letting people do whatever they want, because I've seen what happens when that is the case. It's going on now, where law abiding people are getting ran over by people who DGAF.
No where I can think of in The Constitution is there mention of what is 'legal' at the state level, the document was originally written to only be applied to the federal level. Everything pushing anything in The Constitution down to the State level is some court declaration. By definition, you should be against those declarations.......unless they are in your favor, then you are for them. I'm fine with Mass laws on guns, I choose not to live there, same with New Jersey. Unless you want to have a 'reformist' view of The Constitution and apply it to the States directly.
Boghog1
NES Member
Let's apply all those to firearms, I get it youbthink there are people that shouldn't be on the roads, others think there are people that shouldn't own firearms. myself I think people should do what they want as long as they don't cause injury to others.This is fun:
Interstate Travel
www.law.cornell.edu
The right mentioned in the Constitution did away with requiring passports/visas or other permission to cross State lines temporarily and/or permanently, back when it was the 'many states'.
Anything not mentioned directly in the Constitution is a 10th Amendment issue. So, unfortunately, the states get to determine what is 'free' to do with 'traveling'. I don't agree with just letting people do whatever they want, because I've seen what happens when that is the case. It's going on now, where law abiding people are getting ran over by people who DGAF.
No where I can think of in The Constitution is there mention of what is 'legal' at the state level, the document was originally written to only be applied to the federal level. Everything pushing anything in The Constitution down to the State level is some court declaration. By definition, you should be against those declarations.......unless they are in your favor, then you are for them. I'm fine with Mass laws on guns, I choose not to live there, same with New Jersey. Unless you want to have a 'reformist' view of The Constitution and apply it to the States directly.
There, we are in agreement.
The problem is when some ahole who drives a $50 car slams into my car with no insurance because his brakes failed due to PM issues in a place like Maine. Why should I pay a cent to repair my vehicle? Why should my insurance company pay a cent? See where this breaks down? With rights come responsibilities, some people simply are not responsible and unfortunately have to be constrained by laws. I think passing ONE test when you're 15/16 isn't a high hurdle when it comes to vehicle ownership.
As for firearms, I'd be happier with way, way less legal hurdles. I want a select fire M4/AR, because of the giggles. Not because I plan on taking on the government with one. I firmly feel that every law on the books is written by someone who thinks bad people are suddenly going to see the light and become law abiding. I've seen enough multi-page rap sheets to know that's not generally how it goes. So I'm generally against any 'preventive' law, but generally for sentencing augmentation laws that slam people for using a firearm in a crime.
Edit because I just know someone is going to dive into semantics:
The sentence augmentation should be AFTER the conviction, not a stand alone 'charge'.
allen-1
NES Member
My point was that the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights, that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. NJ adding what appears to be an attempt to deliberately disqualify candidates through testing is an infringement. Traveling on public roads in a conveyance (aka car) is not protected by the Bill of Rights in the same fashion. NJ is attempting to apply the same process that it uses for a driver's license to a weapons permit - and I don't believe that they have a legally sound basis to do so.
Boghog1
NES Member
so it is okay for the state to say where and how you can go somewhere? Remember there are pols that want to limit travel to 5 miles from your home because climate change. There are plenty of rights that are not named in the BoR should we treat all unarmed rights as privileges?
Well, freedom of movement is not the same thing as a "right to drive." You want to get from point A to point B using a public way? Go right ahead: there are a half-dozen ways to do that. A car is only one of those ways.
Drivers' licenses make a great analog to LTCs if you're an Anti, because for them, public safety is the paramount concern. For people like me, it's not such a great analog: rights are my paramount concern. It all depends on what you value. I don't particularly value a "safe society," certainly not as much as I value my rights and freedoms.
Boghog1
NES Member
you want to defend yourself, a firearm is only one way, you are free to use hand to hand combat.
Which is great, except that the BoR explicitly mentions "arms" as something we have the right to keep and bear. "Arms," as I'm sure you're aware, include firearms under long-standing US legal precedent.
Boghog1
NES Member
and as stated they didn't list all rights, if traveling is a privilege where is the line you will not agree to? can the government prevent you from driving further than 5 miles from your home without an okay from them?
No, that's a foolish and arbitrary restriction that no court would uphold. That's a pipe dream by the people who want to force us to eat insects, which is another thing a court would shut down.
I'd agree with equating gun licenses to car licenses if the Constitution even went so far as to mention something like "conveyances." It doesn't. Owning and operating a car simply are not constitutionally protected rights, and the state's ability to regulate those licenses is unquestioned. They require more frequent renewals for elderly drivers, for example, thus predicating a continued state-recognized driving privilege on the driver's age. The same requirement for firearms would never pass constitutional scrutiny.
allen-1
NES Member
I did not say that.
I said that the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights; whereas driving a vehicle isn't. Therefore the attempt by NJ to apply the same sort of licensing tests to bearing arms that they might apply to driving isn't legally sound. In my opinion, but of course.
I did not say anything about the legality or lack thereof of their driver's licensing tests. I don't care about them. I live in Georgia, I have a Georgia driver's license. Under federal agreements, I can travel in and through NJ using that license.
The only reason I care about their weapons permit process is that if successful, other states might emulate them. I've seen what CT has done, I see what MA is trying to do, I see what NJ is trying to do. That's why I'm a member of SAF, GOA and FPC - national firearms rights groups.
allen-1
NES Member
Not really.
That's why they're called "privileges", not "rights".
Whether they ought to be able to curtail those privileges, and to what degree they can do so is typically set by law - and in theory at least - we elect those lawmakers to represent us.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2014
- Messages
- 551
- Likes
- 607
Relax, this is just New Jeresys way of assembling a kick ass squad of idpa/uspsa shooters
allen-1
NES Member
I was looking something up in the GSSF rules, and ran across this bit of loveliness:
Read that again - posession of std capacity magazine is a felony. Transporting loaded magazines through NJ is a violation of NJ state law.
I keep a box in my truck at all times. When I travel out of state, depending upon where I'm going, I throw a padlock on it it so that I meet the requirements of FOPA. In that box are (6) loaded pmags and (4) loaded G17 mags. They're all limited capacity magazines, so that I can travel in/through less enlightened states - but per Glock, that's not sufficient. I'm going to have to look into this before I travel up that way again...
EDITED TO ADD:
So I looked it up - and it appears that Glock is incorrect.
From NJ State Police Firearms FAQS, (Firearms Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) | New Jersey State Police)
Read that again - posession of std capacity magazine is a felony. Transporting loaded magazines through NJ is a violation of NJ state law.
I keep a box in my truck at all times. When I travel out of state, depending upon where I'm going, I throw a padlock on it it so that I meet the requirements of FOPA. In that box are (6) loaded pmags and (4) loaded G17 mags. They're all limited capacity magazines, so that I can travel in/through less enlightened states - but per Glock, that's not sufficient. I'm going to have to look into this before I travel up that way again...
EDITED TO ADD:
So I looked it up - and it appears that Glock is incorrect.
From NJ State Police Firearms FAQS, (Firearms Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ's) | New Jersey State Police)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,677
- Likes
- 33,832
If one is truly a sovereign citizen, the US government can establish tariffs for import/export to your residence, and set up a customs inspection station at the end of your driveway.
That would be one of the few Customs personnel I'd actually feel sorry for. I've dealt with SC's before in a limited capacity, I always felt dumber for the interaction.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,677
- Likes
- 33,832
The judge who called the term "Sovereign Citizen" an oxymoron called it correctly.
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,329
- Likes
- 7,159
So no LTC for someone missing a left index finger?
