NJ transport laws

[FITASC]

+1 Don P

 

[Don P]

+1 Don P

Thank you. There are 4 retired LEO's that I shoot competition with and not one of them would consider traveling in the north east carrying concealed even with the federal law behind them. The letter abbreviation escapes me at this early hour for retired LEO

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My question is what will this bill do for me in the following states?
NY and NYC, Maryland, DC, Massachusetts, NJ, California, with regards to their restrictive gun laws. As it stands now living in FL the state of Florida has reciprocity agreements with 36 states. Just my view point that many folks pushing for this legislation are from states that CCW is extremely hard to obtain or dam near impossible to obtain thinking this is going to be the fix all for their home state issues.

The short answer is that it would allow you to carry legally in all the states you listed. The proposed law supersedes the restrictive state laws.

I don't think home state issues is why most people are behind this at all. I have a permit from my home state, and I also have permits from five other states. I have no issues whatsoever carrying in my home state. But ... in order to visit friends and relatives who live in the Northeast and New England, I have to travel through states such as New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. Technically, I'm legal if I "transport" in strict accordance with the FOPA (actually, even stricter, because the FOPA says the firearm "or" the ammunition must be in a locked case, but when that got to the NJ State Police web site "or" had become "and," so I need two, separate locked cases in New Jersey), but I can't carry when traversing those states. And it's well known that police in New York (especially NYC, and the most direct route into New England in I-95 across the George Washington Bridge and through NYC) pay no attention to the FOPA. Personally, I'd like to see real national reciprocity so I can drive from my house to my sister's house and not have to spend a significant portion of the trip disarmed.

The proposed law would do the same thing for you as it would for me in the states you named -- it would allow us to carry, legally, in those states as long as we either have a carry permit from any state, or if we come from a constitutional carry state. Moreover, under current reciprocity or recognition agreements, the gun-free school zone act is a trap. Current federal law says that one cannot carry in a school zone (which is defined as a radius extending 1000 feet around any school property) unless one has a license or permit issued by the state in which the school is located. Which means that in the 35 states other than Florida that recognize your Florida permit, you're breaking the law any time you drive through one of these school zones. If you actually travel out of state, do you check out where ALL schools (and other facilities that fall within the classification of "school," such as child day care centers) are located, and plan your movements and activities so you avoid all those [often overlapping] zones?

You mentioned California. Here's a map of the gun-free school zones for San Francisco:

Look closely. You can't drive through San Francisco on I-280 or state highway 101 without crossing numerous school zones. But, of course, California doesn't recognize Florida permits, so that's perhaps not the best example. But Arizona is now a "constitutional carry" state, so you can carry in AZ either with your Florida permit, or without it. But ... don't drive through Phoenix with a loaded gun on your hip.

Phoenix is laid out pretty much on a grid, and the major routes through the city run mostly straight north-south or east-west. But you can't just drive through Phoenix in a straight line in any direction without passing through numerous school zones. Even AZ residents aren't protected if they're following constitutional carry; the federal law only exempts people who have a license or permit issued by the state in which the school is located. A tourist, even with a Florida permit, is toast.

The proposed national reciprocity law addresses this. That's as good a reason as any to pass it, even though it also conveys other benefits and advantages beyond fixing the GFSZ problem.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

That’s what makes it confusing since everything is about interstate travels.

Traveling from New Jersey to Pennsylvania is, by definition, interstate travel. The FOPA is federal law. The feds don't have jurisdiction over travel within New Jersey, they assert jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause. So, once more than one state is involved, the feds can claim jurisdiction. It isn't necessary to have three states in order to have interstate travel. All you have to do is cross one state border.

 

[Al Norris]

Fixing the "Gun Free School Zone" (GFSZ), I hardly think so.

Whether or not this law, if enacted, voids a state restriction (presumably modeled on the federal law - 922(q)), it does nothing to void the actual federal restriction. It is plain that one must have a license/permit issued by the state in which the school is located:

§922(q)(2)(B)(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;​

The proposed national reciprocity law does not explicitly nor even implicitly address the above. You will still need a state permit in order to not fall afoul of federal law.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Fixing the "Gun Free School Zone" (GFSZ), I hardly think so.

Whether or not this law, if enacted, voids a state restriction (presumably modeled on the federal law - 922(q)), it does nothing to void the actual federal restriction. It is plain that one must have a license/permit issued by the state in which the school is located:

§922(q)(2)(B)(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

The proposed national reciprocity law does not explicitly nor even implicitly address the above. You will still need a state permit in order to not fall afoul of federal law.

Al, that's what I thought at first, too. Then, after being told by an NRA rep that it's been taken care of, I read it again, for comprehension. The fix is in the Senate version:

(b) Conditions and limitations.—The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

In other words, under the proposed Senate version, an out of state permit becomes equivalent to a home state permit.

Since the Senate version differs from the House version, if it passes there will have to be a reconciliation session. Hopefully, this provision will survive, because reciprocity is worthless without addressing the GFSZA.