About New Jersey and Transporting/Carrying To PA

[knight0334]

We've had enough of these threads here. From this day forward the following applies:

Until the New Jersey State Supreme Court, the US 3rd District Court, or the Supreme Court of the United States says FOPA(or NJ law)covers transporting in New Jersey to a neighboring state - the text of New Jersey law stands as it is written. Which means NO transporting unless you have a NJ permit, or fall under one of the exemptions in NJ law like to/from a range/hunting location/gunsmith/your place of business.

And until someone can cite a case from one of the (3) courts named in the paragraph above that specifically supports FOPA or a new state exemption to transport to a neighboring state to merely carry there - the rule is for this site is that any advice given to NJ residents for carrying or transporting to PA must abide by New Jersey law limiting transporting to/from a range, hunting location, gunsmith, or your place of business.


Also see: http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...ly-report.html

[Gun]

Would imagine this would apply to transporting to any other state as well, from New Jersey.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[knight0334]

Yes, it certainly would.

However most of our dealings are with PA related questions. Folks should go to a Delaware or New York gun rights website for questions dealing with either of those two states.

[Gun]

Either way, whichever state one travels to, leaving Jersey still has those specific exemptions for one to even be able to travel with a firearm from the initial start of the journey, even if the trip were to Vermont. IANAL.

[vladtepes]

with all due respect how was this decision made....

I understand the context of the law.. I have read it a million times over as I USED to live in NJ...

with that said what you are stating is not correct (in practice at least).. and what I mean is this..

you are either allowed to leave NJ with your gun.. or you are not unless going DIRECTLY to an exempted location..
people fly out of NJ with handguns on a DAILY basis, these are situations where they are OBVIOUSLY not going directly to and from a place of exemption..

If the intention of enforcement was that you may ONLY travel out of the state going directly to and from a place of exemption this practice of travel would be completely disallowed, when I contacted the NJSP firearms division they stated that my understanding of the law was correct and that I may take my personal property with me when traveling out of state but that if I were bringing my guns to PA I had to comply with PA laws once I left the state. They made no indication that I was not allowed to travel out of state with my cased unloaded handgun...

I understand that you do not want random idiots bringing handguns to PA just for the sake of walking around with a handgun... but regardless of how the law may be written.. NJ in practice appears to abide by FOPA in the sense that at the origin of a NJ residents trip (his property) he may legally posses and carry said gun.. and at his destination (in this case PA)... he can do the same..

if this were not the case air travel would be impossible.. and that is just not the case..

so again.. no disrespect intended.. but how are you arriving at this conclusion..

[mikelets456]

with all due respect how was this decision made....

I understand the context of the law.. I have read it a million times over as I USED to live in NJ...

with that said what you are stating is not correct (in practice at least).. and what I mean is this..

you are either allowed to leave NJ with your gun.. or you are not unless going DIRECTLY to an exempted location..
people fly out of NJ with handguns on a DAILY basis, these are situations where they are OBVIOUSLY not going directly to and from a place of exemption..

If the intention of enforcement was that you may ONLY travel out of the state going directly to and from a place of exemption this practice of travel would be completely disallowed, when I contacted the NJSP firearms division they stated that my understanding of the law was correct and that I may take my personal property with me when traveling out of state but that if I were bringing my guns to PA I had to comply with PA laws once I left the state. They made no indication that I was not allowed to travel out of state with my cased unloaded handgun...

I understand that you do not want random idiots bringing handguns to PA just for the sake of walking around with a handgun... but regardless of how the law may be written.. NJ in practice appears to abide by FOPA in the sense that at the origin of a NJ residents trip (his property) he may legally posses and carry said gun.. and at his destination (in this case PA)... he can do the same..

if this were not the case air travel would be impossible.. and that is just not the case..

so again.. no disrespect intended.. but how are you arriving at this conclusion..

I agree with Vlad on this as i was a NJ resident as well. NJ laws are very vague thus requiring a lawyer. Heck, the State Police of NJ don't understand the laws. As a previous NJ resident, when I went into Philly, I would carry. There ain't a chance in heck that I was going into Philadelphia without carrying.

I think it would be better suited to advise NJ residents to check with their local and state officials regarding this matter and let them know we are all supporting the same cause. we're all on the same side wanting the 2A for ALL law abiding citizens! We need each other to be united especially now that the Supreme court is challenging the 2A. If that happens, we're all in a world of hurt.

Lets start supporting each other.

As Ben Franklin said "We need top hang together or most assuredly we'll hang alone".

[ExplEngineer]

I apologize for my error. I had tried to clearly state that nothing said therein was to be construed as legal advice, nor was I an attorney licensed to practice in any state. My more customary disavowal is:

Legal Notice: This message does not constitute legal or other professional advice, nor does it create an Attorney/Client, or other confidential or fiduciary relationship between the sender and/or any other party

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U. S. C., Sections 2510-2521, and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, copying, forwarding or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium please so advise the sender immediately.

Electronic Transmission Security Notice: Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of the message that arise as a result of its electronic (e-mail) transmission.
©2011 -

Again, no disrespect intended, it is just that it is important to me that no one other than myself, or a client who has retained me and vested a degree of trust in my abilities and accepted my expertise in a specific matter, act predicated upon what I have said, or appeared to say, believing it to be authoritative or applicable to a specific question or issue. What my original intent was to share a portion of the significant amount of training that I/we had back in my other work life as a Special Agent of the old U.S. Treasury Department's Bureau of ATF (note the absence of the "E"), which as one might surmise has been a long time ago having retired after 25 yrs more than 10 years ago, although I do spend a considerable amount of time in and around the courtroom in both U.S. District Courts and many states Courts of original (trial) jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters. From what I have read so far in this particular thread, I should be quite happy not to have included New Jersey within the venues in which I have testified as an expert witness on these and other non-firearms [most of my career was in the areas of fire and explosives investigations, which was probably for the best as I watched an agency where many, if not most of the Special Agents were firearms enthusiasts (& competitive shooters) evolve into "the 'Brady Bunch'" where military and competitive firearms experience was no longer considered to be an asset should one not ascribe to the "company line" (again, this not intended to be a general criticism of the old BATF, it simply behaved in a manner that most scholars who have studied, or continue to study the organizational behavior of administrative and enforcement agencies, most particularly at the Federal level would be considered to be a typical attempt to expand their jurisdiction, and their relative degree of importance within the Cabinet in which they exist). Gun Control, at each juncture where it has the propensity for growth that become an opportunity for bureaucratic expansion, pay grade creep, the opportunity to endorse legislation that is politically viable at the specific time and place where there is broad Executive Branch enthusiasm and interest (one need only study the changes in organization and advancement of bureaucratic control and authority that occurred when the old Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division of the IRS became the independent BATF, at the time of the passing of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to begin the weaving of a web of authority and control over persons who possess, sell, transfer, etc. firearms, as well as the manufacturers thereof utilizing the omnipresent vehicle in virtuallly all 20th Century expansion of authority and span of control, the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Through a series of SCOTUS decisions, the Congress of the United States began to believe that they could micro-manage events and exercise greater control over its citizens, much has been written as to the motivation of the Executive Branch, utilizing its "co-equal" Legislative and Judicial Brances, and its efforts in furtherance thereof so I shall eschew repeating them and perhaps in doing so contaminating an academic exercise with political values, by appending the words "in and affecting Interstate Commerce" to the end of any monitoring or controlling statutes or regulations as if by saying it, it would in all cases simply become accepted as truth. Again, the applicability of this simple phrase to any specific statute pertaining to individual rights of possession outside of what most non-legal scholars of the post 1920's Twentieth Century by simply stating that if a firearms is manufactured in one state, and at one time in its history it has crossed a state line into another state it is henceforth and forever to be considered to be in and/or affecting interstate commerce. I would have t say that I have oft wondered how, if or when anything that is not grown, raised from whelping, or manufactured within the state of one's residence and NEVER, EVER, taken across a state line can be other than "in or affecting interstate commerce", but again I am not an attorney nor licensed to express legal opinions in any state so I shall leave that conclusion to those who hold requisite qualifications. Simply put, however, it has been the position of the Federal government, as conveyed by that esteemed virtuous concept of Stare Decisis (which I believe translates into SCOTUS Justices are infallible, as well as universally authoritative, therefore no one other than another Justice should ever be able to question presume to question, challenge or reverse that which has been a majority opinion of the then current constituency endowed with the auspicious powers of the black robe and wooden hammer, no wig required on this side of the Atlantic Ocean).

All of this having been said in humble deference to those of greater education or qualification as the predicate for my hypothesis that Federal law would prevail and supercede contravening state or territorial law when a conflict is found to exist. Again, my apologies for both the length, and terrible lack of any skills in proofreading and as a new contribuor I have located the spellcheck function but not as of yet the grammatical equivalent thereof I can only ask the indulgence of the reader, if I have not as of yet bored them to the point of discontinuing to read this humble discourse should errors in violation of proper usage of language, syntax, etc., fragmentary or run-on sentences, etc. be found herein. I do need to perhaps assure the Forum Administrator once again that there is no sarcasm or disrespect intended, unfortunately I would have to plead guilty to any charges of anachronistic style of writing and expression, something that can be readily attested to by several past Graduate Assistant who suffered greatly during the course of our cumulatively sharing the academic experience. If need be, please find only humor in my manner of expression, particularly in light of the fact that as a new contributor to (and member of) this Forum, it may take several instances of my "contributing to a discussion or thread" for said administrator to recognize the sincerity of my assurance that nothing untoward is either implied or expressed in my posting(s)

[twency]

...my hypothesis that Federal law would prevail and supercede contravening state or territorial law when a conflict is found to exist...

Here's the problem, I think. Most of the folks involved in this discussion aren't arguing that a superseding federal law would have no effect if it were in conflict with state law.

They're saying that the particular federal law under discussion doesn't apply to this particular situation, so there's no conflict between the laws and consequently no federal preemption of state law.

[vladtepes]

Here's the problem, I think. Most of the folks involved in this discussion aren't arguing that a superseding federal law would have no effect if it were in conflict with state law.

They're saying that the particular federal law under discussion doesn't apply to this particular situation, so there's no conflict between the laws and consequently no federal preemption of state law.

the problem is this.. you can't have it both ways.. the argument is that it does not start till you leave your home state..
FOPA starts at your home.. or it does not..

if it starts at your home.. then in this instance the gun is legal to own and carry at the point of origin (in your home in NJ), and would be legal at the destination as well (in PA).. and in that case.. covered..

if it does not start at your home.. EVERY person who has ever traveled out of state with a gun MUST be going to an exempted location directly from their home in NJ.. the problem with this is that people fly out of NJ all the time with guns and return tickets that are days away (obviously not directly to or from any exempted location)..

the argument is NOT if you have to travel through multiple states..
the argument is instead if it starts at your home or when you cross the border..

as observed in practice.. it starts at your home..

[Valorius]

Here's the problem, I think. Most of the folks involved in this discussion aren't arguing that a superseding federal law would have no effect if it were in conflict with state law.

They're saying that the particular federal law under discussion doesn't apply to this particular situation, so there's no conflict between the laws and consequently no federal preemption of state law.

There is no real evidence that the federal law doesn't apply. If anything, federal automatically supersedes state.

Where are the people that have been charged and convicted? Are there any? Has anyone ever been charged at all for the practice of taking a handgun from NJ under federal transport laws, then CCing here?

Has that ever happened? If the answer is no, it's pretty compelling evidence that the practice is accepted by the authorities.

the problem is this.. you can't have it both ways.. the argument is that it does not start till you leave your home state..
FOPA starts at your home.. or it does not..

if it starts at your home.. then in this instance the gun is legal to own and carry at the point of origin (in your home in NJ), and would be legal at the destination as well (in PA).. and in that case.. covered..

if it does not start at your home.. EVERY person who has ever traveled out of state with a gun MUST be going to an exempted location directly from their home in NJ.. the problem with this is that people fly out of NJ all the time with guns and return tickets that are days away (obviously not directly to or from any exempted location)..

the argument is NOT if you have to travel through multiple states..
the argument is instead if it starts at your home or when you cross the border..

as observed in practice.. it starts at your home..

I agree with this position completely.