So what’s up with the guys in New Jersey?

[herrwalther]

He was told wrong.

The FID is for purchasing handgun ammunition and long rifles, in the state. Said card is not needed for rifle or shotgun ammo. An FID has no bearing on his possession of a handgun. It is in fact perfectly legal to own a handgun WITHOUT the possession of an FID, and perfectly possible to purchase one, but practically no one ever does that.

The address on his FID has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on where he can store his firearms, as long as he is the only one who can gain access to said firearms (without a legal transfer occurring), and/or they are stored his primary place of residence, which would be determined by his driver's license.

Further he has no legal requirement to inform his new location's police force as to his possession of any firearms at his residence. Only if he intends to purchase any new handguns will he need to obtain a P2P for those specific handgun(s).

Got some more info from my buddy when I was texting him last night. He (now) knows that his firearms can be moved. However, all but 2 of his magazines are now illegal with the new restriction law. And he is being rightly paranoid about moving them around. Since he can't buy new ammo or magazines without an updated FID, he is leaving his firearms put for the time being. He did not meet the Dec 9th deadline to have his illegal magazines blocked, destroyed, or willfully confiscated. And now he is worried about being arrested if he gets them blocked after the deadline. I offered to hold his magazines for him until he could come up with a plan if he wanted to ship them out of state.

 

[paulsj]

I completely agree with what you're saying here. I think gun owners often dismiss the lunacy going on in other states, and look down on other gun owners who live in those states (with an attitude that "they'd move if they cared"). These gun owners often fail to realize how quickly the political landscape can change in their own state. Colorado, for instance, was a pretty red state just 15 years ago. Then we were a "swing" state. Now we're solid blue. Along with that transition has come an increasingly concerning attack on some of our civil liberties (such as gun rights).

Now, some people tell me that I should just up and move somewhere else. Well, that's easier said than done... it isn't like I haven't dreamt of the idea. This would have been easy to do 15+ years ago, but it isn't now. I have a wife and daughter in this state, and my wife's entire family is here. My career is here, and I worked hard to get to the point I'm at in my career (and wouldn't have an easy transition to just move to another state with my job). I own a house here, my friends are here, and I've simply built a life here.

The opposition has a majority in our politics, but that doesn't mean the state is entirely filled with morons... we have just enough for mob rule, but mob rule shouldn't override the constitutional rights enumerated in the founding documents of the republic in which we all live. In 2016 around 1.3 million Coloradans voted for the Democratic presidential candidate. Around 1.2 million people voted for the republican. By any measure the Democrat won by around 100,000 votes, but the "minority" party out here still represented 48% of votes cast.

What does all of this mean?

Well, to me it suggests that we can't move away from these problems. We need to start legally fighting these battles in the states in which we live. We can't just continue to give another inch, and another inch, all in the name of safety. There will never be enough gun control laws to keep the gun control lobby happy (at least not short of total disarmament).

As for the original question from this thread:

If I lived in NJ I would refuse to comply with this law. I believe such a measure to be unconstitutional, and I won't give up my rights, my freedom, or my property just because some bureaucrat tells me to do so. But, I'd probably stop keeping that property at my house, and find somewhere to cache those items for future use. I wouldn't want to get in trouble, but that doesn't mean they can have my stuff, either.

Given current immigration trends and in country populaton shifts in not so distant future gun owner there will no place to move to.

 

[SilentStalker]

Trust me Doug Jones did NOT get in because Alabama is going blue, he got in because: ROY MOORE. Moore was a lousy candidate and republican voters stayed home in droves. Jones is in for one, then he's DONE.
In addition, the Alabama Democrat party is in terrible shape.

Your points regarding others states remain valid, however.....

Yep. Jones stole that with the help from outside resources and stupid voters. Not that Moore was abt better but....

Got some more info from my buddy when I was texting him last night. He (now) knows that his firearms can be moved. However, all but 2 of his magazines are now illegal with the new restriction law. And he is being rightly paranoid about moving them around. Since he can't buy new ammo or magazines without an updated FID, he is leaving his firearms put for the time being. He did not meet the Dec 9th deadline to have his illegal magazines blocked, destroyed, or willfully confiscated. And now he is worried about being arrested if he gets them blocked after the deadline. I offered to hold his magazines for him until he could come up with a plan if he wanted to ship them out of state.

Moving is not an option. Might as well just hand it all over if that is the plan. Inch by inch they take. Your friend finds himself in this position because it was allowed. I still say we all ban together and all move to one state.

Given current immigration trends and in country populaton shifts in not so distant future gun owner there will no place to move to.

Exactly!

 

[boom boom]

You don't have a 5th Amendment "taking" as long as there's the possibility of storing them outside the state. I don't believe that a 5th Amendment compensation case would become ripe until the ban legislation was on the federal level.

A federal bump stock ban could fulfill the requirements for such a case.

That is not true. Can give the song and verse of caselaw but that is not necessary for a taking, even a regulatory action that effectively nullifies your investment can be considered a taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission. Certainly a direct requirement by a state that takes legally bought property and requires it to be transported out of state which renders it useless could be considered under Lucas's reasoning. There is no transportation exception to a taking, only that the all value be eviscerated. The involvement of regulatory takings is complicated but generally handled by either grandfathering or compensation. For example, a prohibition on buying and selling eagle feathers has been held by the court to be constitutional but not confiscation of property owned before the law (Andrus v. Allard). Thus, NJ could ban sale or transfer of such magazines or possibly even prevent them from being carried out of the house, require them to be confiscated but paid fair market value, etc. But it is a taking.

Not familiar with NJ jurisprudence but their constitution has an analogue of the 5th in its constitution. So it might also be an a live issue in NJ courts under the state constitution as well.

"Art. 1, Sec. 20. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Individuals or private corporations shall not be authorized to take private property for public use without just compensation first made to the owners."

 

[AlexanderA]

That is not true. Can give the song and verse of caselaw but that is not necessary for a taking, even a regulatory action that effectively nullifies your investment can be considered a taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission. Certainly a direct requirement by a state that takes legally bought property and requires it to be transported out of state which renders it useless could be considered under Lucas's reasoning. There is no transportation exception to a taking, only that the all value be eviscerated. The involvement of regulatory takings is complicated but generally handled by either grandfathering or compensation. For example, a prohibition on buying and selling eagle feathers has been held by the court to be constitutional but not confiscation of property owned before the law (Andrus v. Allard). Thus, NJ could ban sale or transfer of such magazines or possibly even prevent them from being carried out of the house, require them to be confiscated but paid fair market value, etc. But it is a taking.

I sure hope you're right but I'm not willing to bet that you are.

 

[boom boom]

I sure hope you're right but I'm not willing to bet that you are.

Part of the issue is that NY's Safe Act and various other firearms cases were heard in the 2nd and 1st circuit which are notoriously anti-gun. Even in the SAFE act, the NY federal district court judge ruled that requiring non-existent 7 round magazines or loading only 7 rounds in existing magazines (to avoid the takings issue) was not rationally based. As the law itself was facially challenged on the 2A, not the 5th's takings clause, the court did not address that issue.

There are some exceptions to the takings clause that do not require compensation even though the economic value is eliminated for buying or selling such goods. This line of case usually deals with issues such as adulterated or harmful food, cosmetics, toys, or drugs that can affect people's health and which generally prevent these items from being sold (thus most people discard the items or destroy them) but these have not really addressed for the most part whether or not you could personally keep that blood sausage was declared by the state to be infected with something or another (course all blood sausage is bad to me). The eagle feather and ivory cases also rest on the idea that the state can ban sale and perhaps exchanges with another (not really sure about whether or not those laws affect inheritance rights which might imply a taking). If I have time, I'll also take a look at cases where the Prohibition affected existing stocks of liquor and whether existing stocks were grandfathered in but could not be sold.

 

[coloradokevin]

Given current immigration trends and in country populaton shifts in not so distant future gun owner there will no place to move to.

I agree. Back when Colorado started going stupid a few years ago I had friends in Wyoming and Texas telling me how I should just move, and chest-thumping a bit about how that would never happen there. Well, Texas is already starting to show signs of change (unfortunately), and they already have a few gun laws that are more restrictive than ours. Wyoming is still deep red, but with a very small population. In fact, our population growth just in the past ten years in Colorado represents 132% of Wyoming's total population... so my neighbors to the north better be very aware of the fact that in-migration can totally change their political landscape. After all, the blue voters we've gained in the past decade down here are more than the total population of that state today!

Again, I think it's important to remember that this nation is a republic, not a democracy. Even if 51% of the population of any given state want guns outlawed, that's not a majority capable of overturning the constitutional amendment which enumerates this right.

Unfortunately the SCOTUS has been negligent on this matter for some time now. I hope they start hearing some second amendment cases again soon, and actually exert some "checks" on the legislature.

 

[Elkins45]

He did not meet the Dec 9th deadline to have his illegal magazines blocked, destroyed, or willfully confiscated. And now he is worried about being arrested if he gets them blocked after the deadline. I offered to hold his magazines for him until he could come up with a plan if he wanted to ship them out of state.

Why can’t he just whack them with a hammer and throw them in the trash right now?

I would be happy to hold magazines for anyone that wanted to ship them to me. I won’t even use them.

 

[GRIZ22]

Apparently the ban applies to everyone......

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...eapons-while-off-duty-HIerRHQqnUyAM4_V350zFQ/

I think that's fake news.

 

[herrwalther]

Why can’t he just whack them with a hammer and throw them in the trash right now?

I wouldn't want to destroy $300 worth of magazines. I agreed with him that he should find a way to make them legal and still usable.

 

[Elkins45]

I wouldn't want to destroy $300 worth of magazines. I agreed with him that he should find a way to make them legal and still usable.

Me either, but what other options does he have available to him?

 

[sota]

I wouldn't want to destroy $300 worth of magazines. I agreed with him that he should find a way to make them legal and still usable.

heh... dude, add a zero.

 

[Robert]

THR will not tolerate any posts that suggest breaking the law. The law is absolutely unconstitutional, but there are legal ways to oppose the law. We will not now, or ever, discuss illegal actions.