Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Have fun in jail.

Meanwhile PA and NJ have permissive rule sets. What's allowed in PA isn't allowed in NJ. When you drive halfway across NJ you better learn the law or enjoy the consequences.

Somebody obviously doesn't know what a permissive rule set means.

So wait...you have the same attitude when it comes to anti-sodomy laws? This point of view reeks of authority worship.

Are you 12 too?

I would really like to see a federal framework for 100% countrywide ccw reciprocity. I don't think it's workable, though. There's really no gain for the individual states.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Have fun in jail.

Meanwhile PA and NJ have permissive rule sets. What's allowed in PA isn't allowed in NJ. When you drive halfway across NJ you better learn the law or enjoy the consequences.

Somebody obviously doesn't know what a permissive rule set means.

So wait...you have the same attitude when it comes to anti-sodomy laws? This point of view reeks of authority worship.

Are you 12 too?

Not really. Are you resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have nothing useful to contribute? I think we all know the answer.

What the...?!?

SERIOUSLY - RULE #1.

EVERYONE.

 easysauce wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

I assume you want to prosecute gay people in states that still have anti sodomy laws too then? ignorance =/= defence and all that?

No, because those laws have been ruled unconstitutional and can not be enforced. In some places they still exist because nobody has bothered to remove them, but any attempt to prosecute someone under them is just going to get thrown out of court as soon as you file the charges.

If only there was a part of the constitution that protected the right to keep and bare firearms like the "right to have sodomy sex" amendmant.

you may as well tell people that sodomy is controversial, and to should do extensive research on every place they are allowed to be have sodomy sex in or leave their sodomizing at home.

again, speed limits are the law,

do we expect everyone to know every single speed limit ever, or do we POST the laws in the relevant areas so that its clear and evident that the rules in that particular area have changed from the area you just left.

We do expect people do know the speed limits. It's on the test in Oklahoma and i doubt that anybody assumes that Oklahoma is smarter than the rest of the states.

The right to carry guns is regulate by the states. They have to comply with constitutional law, but each state gets to decide how they do it.

If you don't realize that states license the carrying of guns then you are the kind of person that should not carry.

 CptJake wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
She was ticketed in Atlantic County. She is from PA.

Good spot. I just looked at google maps and man, that is a very unlikely wrong turn.




The red broken lines are Atlantic County. Even assuming she was caught literally on the county border, she's driven nearly halfway across New Jersey.

I now wonder if the reason that they're not going for a lesser charge, dropping it entirely, etc etc are that there is a side to this story not yet reported (BLAME THE VICTIM!!!!).

Yep, blows the 'by accident' excuse outta the water for this incident.

Oops.

In her defense, my back yard is bigger.

 Ouze wrote:
I would really like to see a federal framework for 100% countrywide ccw reciprocity. I don't think it's workable, though. There's really no gain for the individual states.

I would like the Feds to stay out of it. Once it is determined to be in their realm, they can say No just as easily as they can say Yes.

 Ouze wrote:
I would really like to see a federal framework for 100% countrywide ccw reciprocity. I don't think it's workable, though. There's really no gain for the individual states.

I agree that it would be nice, and that it would be very hard to ever accomplish. A better solution to me for a situation like this would be a fine, but that perhaps has more to do with the mandatory sentencing for jersey.

 easysauce wrote:
If only there was a part of the constitution that protected the right to keep and bare firearms like the "right to have sodomy sex" amendmant.

There is, however the fact that concealed carry permits exist at all demonstrate that the right to own and carry whatever gun you like in public without any limits does not exist.

you may as well tell people that sodomy is controversial, and to should do extensive research on every place they are allowed to be have sodomy sex in or leave their sodomizing at home.

Except that, unlike concealed carry laws, anti-sodomy laws have been explicitly ruled to be unenforceable. There is no need to research anything because the laws effectively do not exist anymore.

do we expect everyone to know every single speed limit ever, or do we POST the laws in the relevant areas so that its clear and evident that the rules in that particular area have changed from the area you just left.

We post them, because there are too many different speed limits for anyone to ever memorize them without the signs. The same is not true of concealed carry laws. Less than a minute of online searching shows you this site (the top google result) which clearly states that New Jersey does not recognize any concealed carry permits from other states or allow you to carry an accessible gun in your car. There is simply no excuse for not knowing this if you plan to bring a gun into New Jersey.

Well, so far the one thing we've has pretty wide consensus on up in here is mandatory sentencing is terrible

 Ouze wrote:
I would really like to see a federal framework for 100% countrywide ccw reciprocity. I don't think it's workable, though. There's really no gain for the individual states.

This would be nice.

While the driver in question here should know more about firearms laws, and should have known that crossing state borders with firearms is always something you double check, it's also unfortunate that there's fifty different sets of firearm laws plus federal laws for firearms owners to have to potentially know.

It also goes to prove that it's best to say nothing to the police unless you absolutely must do so, and ideally only do so with a lawyer present. Being up front and honest with law enforcement isn't in one's best interests

 Ouze wrote:
Well, so far the one thing we've has pretty wide consensus on up in here is mandatory sentencing is terrible

Nope I like mandatory sentences, even in this case. Don't blame everyone else when you're an idiot.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Have fun in jail.

Meanwhile PA and NJ have permissive rule sets. What's allowed in PA isn't allowed in NJ. When you drive halfway across NJ you better learn the law or enjoy the consequences.

Somebody obviously doesn't know what a permissive rule set means.

So wait...you have the same attitude when it comes to anti-sodomy laws? This point of view reeks of authority worship.

Are you 12 too?

Not really. Are you resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have nothing useful to contribute? I think we all know the answer.

I just feel like we enter a certain territory when I see people pulling the "sodomy-law" card. It just feels like a very juvenile argument made when you don't have any meaningful point to make. It doesn't add anything to the discussion when you compare an argument for awareness of constitutional laws with unconstitutional laws about sodomy. It feels more like somebody going "hehehe, buttsex"

funny, when its information about bad foods, and its on the label, thats not enough being done to educate the public, and its not the eaters fault for not understanding/reading the label, because those labels are complicated.

but when its gun laws, that are not in such plain veiw, feth the fethers because they should know better.


peregrine, yes we do expect people to obey posted speed limite... key word POSTED on a big sign, at the relevant location, we do not actuallly expect people to know the speed limit for every street.

again, im not saying her ignorance of the law means its ok to break the law, I am saying the laws have breach the "reasonably easy to access, remember, and follow" threshold in addition to the unconstitutional nature to them.

sodomy laws are comparable, in that they are stupid, you dont overtly know where they apply, and are unconstitutional.

We've got reciprocity figured out for drivers licensing via the DLC; there's gotta be some latitude to work something like that for CCW.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Have fun in jail.

Meanwhile PA and NJ have permissive rule sets. What's allowed in PA isn't allowed in NJ. When you drive halfway across NJ you better learn the law or enjoy the consequences.

Somebody obviously doesn't know what a permissive rule set means.

So wait...you have the same attitude when it comes to anti-sodomy laws? This point of view reeks of authority worship.

Are you 12 too?

Not really. Are you resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have nothing useful to contribute? I think we all know the answer.

I just feel like we enter a certain territory when I see people pulling the "sodomy-law" card. It just feels like a very juvenile argument made when you don't have any meaningful point to make. It doesn't add anything to the discussion when you compare an argument for awareness of constitutional laws with unconstitutional laws about sodomy. It feels more like somebody going "hehehe, buttsex"

Waitwaitwait...sodomy laws are unconstitutional, yet gun control laws aren't? Oh boy...

I'm not the one typing "hehehe, buttsex." And, for what it's worth, sodomy pertains to oral sex too, in some cases even as practiced by heterosexual couples. The point isn't some juvenile obsession with sexual practices...that was never my point and anyone reading that from my posts is merely projecting...the point is that not all laws are good and worshiping authority is, for lack of a better word, completely pathetic.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:


Have fun in jail.

Meanwhile PA and NJ have permissive rule sets. What's allowed in PA isn't allowed in NJ. When you drive halfway across NJ you better learn the law or enjoy the consequences.

Somebody obviously doesn't know what a permissive rule set means.

So wait...you have the same attitude when it comes to anti-sodomy laws? This point of view reeks of authority worship.

Are you 12 too?

Not really. Are you resorting to ad hominem attacks because you have nothing useful to contribute? I think we all know the answer.

I just feel like we enter a certain territory when I see people pulling the "sodomy-law" card. It just feels like a very juvenile argument made when you don't have any meaningful point to make. It doesn't add anything to the discussion when you compare an argument for awareness of constitutional laws with unconstitutional laws about sodomy. It feels more like somebody going "hehehe, buttsex"

Waitwaitwait...sodomy laws are unconstitutional, yet gun control laws aren't? Oh boy...

Them's the facts.

I believe the distinction between sodomy laws and other laws was clearly and definitively answered by Peregrine already in this thread.

 easysauce wrote:
peregrine, yes we do expect people to obey posted speed limite... key word POSTED on a big sign, at the relevant location, we do not actuallly expect people to know the speed limit for every street.

Again, because there are too many different streets for anyone to ever know them without signs. The same is not true of gun control laws. A minute or two of internet searching will give you all the information you need to know that what the woman did was not legal, and that her concealed carry permit was not recognized in New Jersey. This is on the same level as expecting someone to be able to figure out that murder isn't legal even if there aren't any "NO MURDER" signs posted in that particular area.

again, im not saying her ignorance of the law means its ok to break the law, I am saying the laws have breach the "reasonably easy to access, remember, and follow" threshold in addition to the unconstitutional nature to them.

They don't breach that threshold in any way. The laws are easy to access (a minute or two of searching), easy to remember (search before your trip, all you have to remember is yes/no on whether you can take your gun with you), and easy to follow (don't take your gun if it isn't legal).

sodomy laws are comparable, in that they are stupid, you dont overtly know where they apply, and are unconstitutional.

They aren't comparable at all because "where they apply" is nowhere. Seriously, I've said this multiple times already so I don't know why you don't get it: anti-sodomy laws are unenforceable. They still exist in some places because nobody bothered to get rid of them when they were ruled to be unenforceable, but you have better odds of winning the lottery than of being convicted under anti-sodomy laws, and your conviction would be immediately thrown out on appeal even if a lower court was ignorant enough to try to enforce the law.

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

She's gotta know the laws of the states she borders if she lives close to said borders. I live within 10 minutes of both Indiana and Kentucky, and I know the laws and how they affect my carry license in both states.

That's a good example of what I mean with responsible ownership vs. negligence.

You might accidentally cross into another state, especially if you live close to a border. But you should know the laws for those states and be prepared for the possibility that you might accidentally cross. If you are not, and you break the law, then you were negligent IMO.

Cincydooley seems to be prepared and appears to be a good example of being responsible.

So Cinceydooley responsibly does not carry his gun in his car to defend himself against attack or others against the random killers that are so frequently stopped by responsible gun owners in the USA if he is driving in his car and might by mistake or mischance go over the border into the other state where his gun would be illegal as he knows.

Er...runon sentence....

 Kilkrazy wrote:



So Cinceydooley responsibly does not carry his gun in his car to defend himself against attack or others against the random killers that are so frequently stopped by responsible gun owners in the USA if he is driving in his car and might by mistake or mischance go over the border into the other state where his gun would be illegal as he knows.

I have no idea what this means.

Cincydooley researched the CCW reciprocity laws of the states he reasonably enters on a normal basis.

Both states have reciprocity with Ohio.

Had they not, Cincydooley would have gotten his CCW in said states.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
.the point is that not all laws are good and worshiping authority is, for lack of a better word, completely pathetic.

Expecting people to follow laws, especially ones that have been found constitutional, is not "worshiping authority" though.

Here is my stance on following laws, one that I have articulated plenty of times over many many threads and one that has not changed at all:

1) Many laws are stupid.
2) Just because you think a law is stupid does not mean that you can ignore it. Stupid laws are still laws and have to be followed.
3) The way to change a stupid law is to fight it. You do not change it by ignoring it.
3.1) Ways to fight laws:
3.11) Elect enough people to change it.
3.12) Break the law on purpose to get the punishment, and then fight it through the court and accept the punishment in case you lose or get the law overturned by the court.
3.13) Initiative petitions (or whatever similar process you have on the books in your state/jurisdiction).
3.14) Civil disobedience. But the problem with civil disobedience is that people don't remember one of the main purposes of civil disobedience. You break the law specifically to get the punishment. You want the punishment, in large numbers, to point out how stupid it is and how it is an injustice. You want to be punished so that other people look at you and go "that poor guy, this law is stupid and needs to be changed.". Of course if people don't agree with you and just watch you be punished and think you deserve it then the whole thing is a waste of time.
4) If you cannot get enough people elected to change the law, you cannot get enough people voting to change the law, if no court agrees with your interpretation of the law, and if nobody cares that you are wrongfully punished (in your eyes) for not following the law, then it is still the law.
5) Return to Step #1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cincydooley wrote:




Cincydooley researched the CCW reciprocity laws of the states he reasonably enters on a normal basis.

Both states have reciprocity with Ohio.

Had they not, Cincydooley would have gotten his CCW in said states.

I don't live in a border area, but I do have a locked box in my car. If I were to cross into a state where I don't know 100% what the law is I would pull over on the side of the road, take off my gun, lock it up, and be on my way.

I wouldn't just assume like the lady in the OP.

If only she had a gun, that would have protec..
wait a second!

I can see both sides of the argument here regarding knowing the laws and such, as a gun owner she could of easily done a quick search for the information on the internet or go to any public library or even call NJ state office for said information there is a variety of things she could of done before she went to NJ to make sure her CCW and transportation of a firearm was allowed in NJ, however

1. If people carrying fire arms is a common practice in the US or some states as people driving cars than maybe there should be some signs posted at major borders to remind people that this state dose not recognize CCW permits from other states and transporting firearms in your car is against the law blah blah blah.

2. I think in this case the punishment does not fit the crime she made a mistake a stupid one she should receive a fine, have her firearm confiscated by NJ law enforcement , and warning if she does it again then she goes to jail.

Also a quick question since the amendment is the right to bare arms does this also include things like crossbows, swords, spears, Bows etc. or is just fire arms.

Damn this thread is going into some weird places...

Alpha 1 wrote:
Also a quick question since the amendment is the right to bare arms does this also include things like crossbows, swords, spears, Bows etc. or is just fire arms.

I usually bare my arms when i'm fishing or at the beach, and so it doesn't usually require crossbows, swords, etc.

For a less snarky answer, it depends on the state. In my state my conceal carry permit covers both my guns and my switchblade, whereas in NYC switchblades are banned , period, full-stop.

I think probably every state regulates most of the items you describe in at least some manner. They vary even more if you intend to use one of those weapons for hunting, like an Atlatl.

cincydooley wrote:
And I'm also a bit shocked that she was pulled over for failing to signal a lane switch.

Sounds more and more like she was pulled over for DWB In which case, someone should be losing their job, unless this lane change caused some other mayhem on the road around her creating an unsafe environment (really, getting on the road in that part of the country is an unsafe environment)

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

She definitely should NOT have told the LEO that she was carrying.

Actually, quite the opposite... A buddy of mine got pulled over and basically did the same thing up front, with his CCW License, and ya know what?? the officer THANKED him... When the officer asked to see his insurance card, my buddy informed the officer that it was in a cubby directly beneath the dash on the drivers side (he was in his Passat, if you have one, or seen them alot, you know the spot I'm talking about), and was going to reach in there to grab it.

On the flip side of that, let's suppose for a minute that she DOESNT inform the police that she is carrying a (legal in her home state) pistol, and the cop gets "suspicious" and searches the vehicle and her, and finds a pistol that was concealed. It's probably going to end closer to Rodney King than it is the St. Patty's Day parade; Which would lead to "police brutality" media stories instead of the one we have now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

Alpha 1 wrote:
Also a quick question since the amendment is the right to bare arms does this also include things like crossbows, swords, spears, Bows etc. or is just fire arms.

I think probably every state regulates most of the items you describe in at least some manner.

If there's a state board that covers my sword in Washington, I probably need to know about it

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
If there's a state board that covers my sword in Washington, I probably need to know about it

Depends where in Washington. Statewise, you're OK but in Seattle, it better be a sword not more than 3.5" long

Can someone explain how/why hollowpoints are legal? I'm all for CCW, but I don't understand why hollowpoints are considered under the "right to bear arms". By that right, I deserve a bazooka! Not trying to be a jerk, but I am genuinely curious.