Feel like my constitutional rights are being infringed.

Status
Not open for further replies.

APSolo

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
25
Hello, I think this is the first firearm forum I’ve ever joined....

I’ve spent a lot of time lurking as I research State firearm laws so figured I might as well join.

I know I’m likely preaching to the choir here but the way I’m feeling right now warranted a post. I retired from the Army a little while back and decided to take a nationwide “tour” of the US; basically see and experience the country I’ve spent my life defending. I am a Florida CCW holder and NRA member.

As I travel between states, I always have to research State gun laws to ensure compliance wherever I go. So the next state I’m exploring is New Jersey and while researching that state, I couldn’t help but feel very strongly that my 2nd Amendment rights are being infringed. Basically I had to unload and lock my CC weapon and separate the magazines, rendering it absolutely useless. Being I carry an FN FiveSeven, the 20rd magazines are illegal to even posses in the state of New Jersey. So from the way I read the law, I’m committing a crime just having them. Additionally, I train monthly with my firearm. Apparently I cannot train in N.J either....

How does this happen? Is New Jersey not a part of the United States? Does The Constitution not apply in a state like this? I’m a bit confused and the first feeling I had was that my rights are being infringed here. Rights I spent my life defending and putting my a$$ on the line for. I’m a highly trained and experienced law abiding citizen who takes my responsibilities as a CCW holder very seriously so this feels very foreign to me.

I’m not trying to rile people up but this just feels wrong.

At this point I’m considering just not visiting New Jersey because I’m fearful of what could happen if by chance I get a vehicle search or something. God forbid I get into an accident. I’d prefer not to end up in handcuffs.

Thoughts?
 
At this point I’m considering just not visiting New Jersey because I’m fearful of what could happen if by chance I get a vehicle search or something. God forbid I get into an accident. I’d prefer not to end up in handcuffs.

Thoughts?

My thought is that there are parts of this country that, at present, you just cannot safely visit while possessing firearms. You have to decide whether to go there without your firearms or not go at all.

Assuming you are not going "slumming," and are planning to visit the more popular or nice parts of these places, your chances of getting caught by the cops for possessing a currently-illegal weapon are probably a lot higher than your chances, during your brief visit, of being the victim of a crime where a weapon would really help you.
 
Sadly, while Heller found that you have a personal right to own a gun, in its most extreme interpretation the .gov can limit you to a single breechloading smoothbore triple locked in a vault if they so choose......:cuss:

And Heller and McDonald don't really say much of anything about a right to travel with a gun, much less travel without having to do a ton of paperwork and payment of fees. I suspect everyone reading this (including me) would urge the courts to issue opinions clarifying that OP's constitutional rights include his right to travel (one constitutional right) without entirely forfeiting another constitutional right (RKBA), the case law is currently nowhere close to that.

Given the stakes (felony convictions, prison time, lifetime loss of all firearms rights, etc.), this is not an area where you want to be the test case.
 
OP: my sentiments exactly.
Our constitutional rights are indeed being violated, buttressed by a Federal court system filled with judges that apparently can't pass a reading comprehension test.

Maryland is just great. We're soft on crooks, we won't protect you, and BTW we'll also make it so you can't protect yourself either.
Example: we NEVER visit Baltimore MD due to the incidence of violent crime, the catch & release attitude of the local judicial system and the inability to get a CCW permit. Too bad. There's some nice attractions in Baltimore. But it's a choice between staying away and very possibly getting your face bashed by bands of street thugs.

There are no constitutional State laws when it comes to citizens and arms IMHO.
 
Last edited:
I mostly do remote areas, Parks and wilderness plus a few major metro areas thrown in for the “experience”. Unfortunately I am disabled so my ability to physically defend myself is somewhat limited, a reason I carry besides the fact I have a right to. While admittedly the chance of having to defend myself or others is low, it’s the 1% that always concerns me. Again, likely no need to justify that here but that’s the reality I live in.

Storing it is not really an option as I basically live in Hotels, motels and my jeep while on this trip, along with remote camping. I do have a storage unit back in Florida where I keep a Mossberg 590 that goes with me when I’m in brown bear country but it’s not feasible to drive all the way there to store my CCW.

I just thought it was incredibly strange that I had to fear for my legality while in New Jersey. Anyway, I was just kind of venting here as I’m absolutely dumbfounded by the ridiculousness of this whole situation.
 
At this point I’m considering just not visiting New Jersey because I’m fearful of what could happen if by chance I get a vehicle search or something. God forbid I get into an accident. I’d prefer not to end up in handcuffs.
I would go with this idea.

New Jersey is one of the most gun-unfriendly states in the US. There are also occasional, but disturbing, stories of out of state residents being targeted by NJ police and being caught up in the draconian anti-gun laws of the state. I would never set foot in that socialist hell hole.
 
Last edited:
Learn by memory and have printed copies of the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) which grants safe harbor under its conditions for legal carrying of firearms across states. That being said, New Jersey, DC, Illinois, or New York City are places where I would not feel comfortable traveling with firearms. New Jersey also has peculiar laws regarding ammunition as may other states by now. That list may expand shortly. If planning on traveling through those states, consider using Fedex or UPS to send your firearm ahead of you to a destination where you can pick it up at an FFL at your destination. Sure, it will be a hassle and a little bit expensive to go through a background check again to pick up your own firearm but it is far cheaper than a lawyer, bail, and other assorted court costs. Otherwise, look up state laws on things like pepper spray dispensers and tasers. They are better than nothing if worst comes to worst.

18 USC 926A INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS.

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
 
Sadly, while Heller found that you have a personal right to own a gun, in its most extreme interpretation the .gov can limit you to a single breechloading smoothbore triple locked in a vault if they so choose..
The actual holding in Heller is that you can keep a loaded, commonly-available handgun ready for use in your home. It says nothing about other classes of firearms (including rifles and shotguns), nor does it address possession or carry outside the home. Furthermore, even that handgun in the home can be subject to registration and licensing, training requirements, etc.

The way the law stands now, states are perfectly free to impose magazine limits, outlaw "assault weapons," prohibit carrying outside the home, etc.

Remember, this is the latest pronouncement by the Supreme Court. (McDonald just applied the same reasoning to the state level.) The Heller case is not the great pro-gun advancement it was originally thought to be. I actually think that the RKBA would be in a stronger position under the previous Miller case.

For those that say that all we need to look at are the words within the four corners of the 2nd Amendment, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The judicial interpretation cannot be ignored.
 
I'm afraid rural areas can also be risky. In fact, I am just as fearful in a rural area as I am in the city. While there may be fewer, if any, people in the remote area that's both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because there's fewer people out there. A curse because if you're bush-whacked there's no one nearby to help; no one to hear your screams.

There's a particular site in WV called Hawks Nest Overlook that has a beautiful observation area that overlooks the New River Gorge. It's just a beautiful stone setting with steps down to a platform where you can observe nature in near total solitude. Aaaaaaaannnnnnnd that's the problem. Once you're down on the observation platform you're ripe for picking. A drop off of hundreds of feet is on one side and steps which can be blocked are on the other. Robberies , armed and unarmed, are common I hear. We had no issues when we were there but we were very much alone.

Some say the rural areas in WV are awash with pill and meth heads and they are the ones mainly responsible for the crime.
Just another reason why we can't have nice things.

EDIT - found this:
The overlook - it's beautiful but it's also a potential trap:
http://www.newriverwv.com/gallery/hawks-nest/hawksnest_overlook2
 
Last edited:
The actual holding in Heller...

Correct. The rationale, however, would go quite a bit further. Thus far, most circuit courts have not been willing to actually track the rationale of Heller, as Thomas and Kavanaugh have pointed out.

Which is not unusual where the Supreme Court announces a rationale and result that is unpopular with the lower courts. What's a little odd (though hardly unprecedented) is how long it is taking the Supreme Court to circle back around and say, "no, we meant that things in common, lawful use are not going to be ban-able just because a state or federal group of legislators gets scared of them."
 
The ridiculousness that exists in the form of the turnpike is enough of an example to keep me out of Jersey. I was there once, about 10 years ago. I see no reason to go back, especially in this modern day European mindset.
 
Correct. The rationale, however, would go quite a bit further. Thus far, most circuit courts have not been willing to actually track the rationale of Heller, as Thomas and Kavanaugh have pointed out.
The rationale is dicta, which are not binding on the lower courts. I agree that Heller is crying out for clarification. The Court, as currently made up, seems unwilling to do so. I think we have Chief Justice Roberts to thank for this.
 
The rationale is dicta, which are not binding on the lower courts.

Oh, goodness. When you're arguing that some reasoning from the Supreme Court doesn't count because it is "dicta," that is a good sign you are about to lose. The whole point of Supreme Court cert grants is to generate and articulate principles of general applicability. The narrowest interpretation of the holding would rarely be meaningful beyond the parties.
 
The plain and simple reason State Gun Laws vary so much is because GUN OWNERS have allowed it.

Gun owners have sat back, refused to get out and vote and get involved by joining the NRA and other gun organizations. We just had a discussion about how evil the NRA is.

Also just because someone owns a gun doesn't mean they are ok with you owning one. Many gun owners support UBC's on all gun sales, waiting periods and prohibiting people in certain minority groups like yours and mines from owning a gun.

I will offer one piece of legal travel advice;

Under no circumstances consent to allowing the Police search your vehicle. It may not stop the officer from searching it anyway but if you are arrested as a result of the search finding a firearm, etc. the Officer is going to have to prove in Court that he had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of your vehicle.

My simple policy is the Police are not my friend nor are they trained to be.
 
I will offer one piece of legal travel advice;

Under no circumstances consent to allowing the Police search your vehicle. It may not stop the officer from searching it anyway but if you are arrested as a result of the search finding a firearm, etc. the Officer is going to have to prove in Court that he had probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of your vehicle.

My simple policy is the Police are not my friend nor are they trained to be.

Everyone who is about to have their domicile; whether it be home, car, person, etc. searched without a warrant should remember the saying, "I DO NOT consent to a warrantless search of my vehicle" be exceedingly clear on the DO NOT part of the phrase; at which point if the officer pursues you further in the search it is on them like was said above to provide probable cause in the court room. This is a good reason to keep one's car clean and items put away out of sight.

Cops are trained to use communication that seems harmless but is a way of them pursuing your acceptance of giving up your rights to private property. When police use communication such as: "why don't you step out of the car," or "you wouldn't mind if I take a look in your trunk, do you?" One's compliance with such requests grants the police access passed your rights.

The "why don't you step out of the car" statement should be followed up with "Am I being arrested officer?"; as there should be no reason a traffic violation shouldn't be able to be handled by the officer outside the car and the traffic violator inside his/her car. The doors to the vehicle should be locked as well, so the officer has to ask permission to gain entrance to the vehicle, which would allow another opportunity to state, "I do not consent."

I'm not against police and respect the position they serve, but I am against giving them free reign over my personal property. I will gladly comply peacefully with an over-reaching cop after stating "I do not consent to a warrantless search," they can see me in court to prove probable cause.
 
The plain and simple reason State Gun Laws vary so much is because GUN OWNERS have allowed it.

Gun owners have sat back, refused to get out and vote and get involved by joining the NRA and other gun organizations.

Uh, more frequently it is because they are a minority within the state or city. You can be as engaged as you wanna be in NYC, but you're going to be outnumbered (and, therefore, outvoted) very heavily.

This is, of course, an example of why the courts are charged with being the backstop against popular laws that violate individual rights guaranteed by the constitution.
 
Uh, more frequently it is because they are a minority within the state or city. You can be as engaged as you wanna be in NYC, but you're going to be outnumbered (and, therefore, outvoted) very heavily.

Outnumbered no.

Outvoted YES!

LGBT are a small minority that is very successful in changing laws. They are successful because of their commitment, willingness to organize and publicly make their case and most importantly VOTE.

If gun owners on THR can’t even come together to support the NRA what chance do we stand in real America?
 
Yes, outnumbered.

The LGBT movement has had great success in recent years not merely because they vote, but because they have persuaded a large majority of non-LGBT people that many of the pro-gay-rights positions are correct or beneficial. (And it helped a lot that the courts took action to protect their rights... it put questions of the basic legitimacy of gay rights beyond serious political questioning. We'd benefit greatly if the courts would do more of the same with RKBA.)

In many states, and most major cities, the number of gun owners is simply smaller than the number of non-gun-owners. There are more non-gun-owners than gun-owners in the nation as a whole. It is not sufficient for gun owners to "come together." They have to convince non-gun-owners that the gun owners' preferred policies are correct or beneficial.

This is just math.
 
Last edited:
Lived and worked in NJ for two years. Yes, outnumbered is right. New Jersey has draconian gun laws because the overwhelming majority of New Jersey citizens want draconian gun laws.

"In the Stockton University survey, 75 percent of state residents supported stronger laws, more than three times the 19 percent who didn't want any changed. Another 5 percent said the laws should be weakened.

In addition, 75 percent supported banning semi-automatic rifles, compared with 22 percent in opposition."

https://www.nj.com/politics/2018/04/what_nj_thinks_about_the_push_for_stronger_gun_law.html
 
Last edited:
I'll state that I personally do NOT require a state issued permit to travel with a concealed handgun throughout the USA. (However, I have no desire to visit any states east of the MS river. Been there, done that, and the nightmares still exist.)

So I will say to take note. If the US government can find it legal to demand a state to recognize the concealed weapons permit from another state, it will be the precedent that will someday remove handgun rights from states sooner than later. However, at the rate this country is going, in 50 years, most handguns will be illegal to own; let alone carry.
 
The change did not happen overnight did it?

NYC gun control started over 100 years ago with the Sullivan Act in 1911. Gun owners sat back when the NFA was passed in 1938 and the GCA was passed in 1968. With the abuses of the out of control BATF and FBI under Janet Reno and passage of the Brady Bill gun owners began to wake up to how fragile their 2A rights are.

Some States are lost...N.Y., N.J., Maryland for the example. Maybe in your a state also.

But in general we are willing and winning big. Conceal carry laws are on the books in all 50 States. 16 States have adopted Constitutional Carry Laws. More States than not are passing Pro-gun laws. Heller and McDonald are big wins.

One big area for us to make gains is with women. With many single mothers raising their children alone they recognize the need of a gun to protect themselves and their children. As women are the primary caregiver they pass their values to their childern such as owning a gun for self-defense. The simple rule in my family was “If Momma ain’t happy, No one is happy.”

Imagine the influence the NRA would have if it had 10 million members.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top