Reading through everyones woes,  a question came to mind; is the whole NJ FID requirement Unconstitutional?  Federal vs State law, who takes precedence?  By Federal standards, a NICS check is required to purchase rifles/shotguns nationally, how does a single state  or city have legal rights to impose constraints on the process.

Rifle/Shotgun
 In addition to the NICS Check $15-20, for each purchase, FID Permit $5, Finger prints $54, COE which is not even filed with a government entity, for any rifle from a bolt action .22 to a barret 50 cal.  If you want a pistol (not CCW) add $2 per gun.  and a long wait for your paperwork.  on top of that specifically banned weapons, 15 round or less magazines, for rifles, pistols, and 6 round or less for shotguns.......

How is this fair?  As contributing members of society, former military, legal us citizens by birth and heritage, working, paying taxes, spending money within our communities, and supporting our communities; why are we treated this way?

As either a target shooter, hunter, sport shooter, etc; are not  we as US citizens entitled to our pursuit of happiness, or enjoyable hobbies?  If it is my hobby to target shoot legally, why do I have to go through this process?  Especially since it has been confirmed that the NCIS instant check at time of sale, is more thorough than the FID checks.

It has only been about 1 month, since I applied for my Inital FID and P2Ps, hoping to have them within the next month, but who knows.  After reading about others experiences it could be much longer....  

My final thought is does the state and local municipality really need the extra $59 for the FID and $2 each P2P?  

Welcome to the politics of NJ. Fair? Of course not. Don't look for any positive change either. CCW? Forget it, It's never going to happen.

Get use to the corrupt system or move.

There will be no positive changes in NJ firearms laws, ever.

I received my Firearms ID card in 1973. Things have only gotten worse and will continue.

Quoted: Welcome to the politics of NJ. Fair? Of course not. Don't look for any positive change either. CCW? Forget it, It's never going to happen. Get use to the corrupt system or move. There will be no positive changes in NJ firearms laws, ever. I received my Firearms ID card in 1973. Things have only gotten worse and will continue.

All I can say is +1

ALL Firearms Laws are UnConstitutional.  

I got my FID in 1973, I was a studentin Hoboken, I worked for the former Chief of Detectives...they did nothing but stall and hassle me. I had a Professor that was very left but a good guy. Before becoming a Professor, (humanities), he was a Wall Street Lawyer...he was going to file Writ of Mandamus for me.
I tok the easy way I went ot my South Jersey town Population 5,000 town and got yelled at by the cops for not going there first, Dammit you grew up here...we know you!

i would have to agree, nothin will ever change in nj, it took them 200 years before they rewrote the state constituion, they will never get rid of the gun laws, the only thing we hope for is no harsher laws to be enacted. if you can, move out!

No law may usurp rights acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. All "gun-congrol" laws are unconstitutional.

No fee may be charged, per a 1943 Supreme Court ruling (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105), to enjoy a right acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. All license fees for firearms permits (and many other fees, too) are illegal.

Anybody want to get Bill Gates to bankroll our court case?

All rights gauranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or federal law are subject to reasonable regulations and exceptions.  This is why the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech or child pornography.  This is why police can chase a fleeing suspect onto private property.

Unburdensome regulations like instant background checks and shall issue CCW permits are not, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

The may issue bullshit we have to deal with in NY (and NJ) is unconstitutional.  The ban on MGs, SBRs, and suppressors in NY is unconstitutional.  

Quoted: Anybody want to get Bill Gates to bankroll our court case?

LOL!! Boy do you have that right!!

look at what happen in DC it may change one day even more so since the fed ruling.

height=8

All rights gauranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or federal law are subject to reasonable regulations and exceptions.

Says who? I know that's how things have worked out, but nowhere does it say "...shall not be infringed unless..."

"Reasonable regulation"? According to whom? Thanks, but that doesn't flush. I have seen "reasonable" judges eviscerate 2A. Legislators (eg: McCain/Feingold) have taken steps to interpret 1A to limit speech. Libs are still pushing for the "Fairness Doctrine" which will further crap on 1A. Ever hear about Kelo v. New London, CT? There goes part of 5A.

Let's skip this arbitrary concept of "reasonable" and just follow what's written, shall we? If what is written is not desirable, there is a truly reasonable process to change it.

height=8

This is why the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech or child pornography. This is why police can chase a fleeing suspect onto private property.

Diddling a kid isn't a form of "expression" any more than murder is; it's felonious assault and should be dealt with accordingly. Defamatory speech can and should be dealt with in the context of a suit and the defamer should be given a harsh sentence.

One of many problems with our judicial system is punishments do not fit the crime in many cases. When punishments are not a disincentive to prospective criminals, that creates a problem.

height=8

Unburdensome regulations like instant background checks and shall issue CCW permits are not, in my opinion, unconstitutional.

Unburdensome to whom? Don't your tax dollars go to maintaining the NICS database, the computer hardware it resides on, techs who maintain it, and those who staff the phones when your FFL calls in your app? Mine sure do. Respectfully, who are you to say that any of my money should be spent on such a thing?

It may not be a difficult burden to bear, I grant you, but it is illegal from a purist's interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say criminals may not own firearms. That makes sense. Owning a firearm is not a crime. Using one in the commission of a crime is wrong, and there are laws already in place to deal with that eventuality. Nowhere in that document does it say these rights are granted only to those willing to pay a fee. A NICS check and the various other fees associated with acquiring a firearm, apart from the cost of the firearm itself are superfluous and a thinly-veiled means to fleece taxpayers.

Quoted: All rights gauranteed by the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or federal law are subject to reasonable regulations and exceptions. Says who? I know that's how things have worked out, but nowhere does it say "...shall not be infringed unless..." "Reasonable regulation"? According to whom? Thanks, but that doesn't flush. I have seen "reasonable" judges eviscerate 2A. Legislators (eg: McCain/Feingold) have taken steps to interpret 1A to limit speech. Libs are still pushing for the "Fairness Doctrine" which will further crap on 1A. Ever hear about Kelo v. New London, CT? There goes part of 5A.

According to whom?  According to the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of Justices appointed and confirmed in accordance with the Constitution.

Let's skip this arbitrary concept of "reasonable" and just follow what's written, shall we? If what is written is not desirable, there is a truly reasonable process to change it.

"Reasonable" is a term of art used in law and is not arbitrary.

This is why the First Amendment does not protect defamatory speech or child pornography. This is why police can chase a fleeing suspect onto private property. Diddling a kid isn't a form of "expression" any more than murder is; it's felonious assault and should be dealt with accordingly.

I said child pornography, not child sex.

Defamatory speech can and should be dealt with in the context of a suit and the defamer should be given a harsh sentence.

There is an entire subset defamation that deals with First Amendment issues.  A strict reading of the First Amendment would have defamation considered protected speech.

Unburdensome regulations like instant background checks and shall issue CCW permits are not, in my opinion, unconstitutional. Unburdensome to whom? Don't your tax dollars go to maintaining the NICS database, the computer hardware it resides on, techs who maintain it, and those who staff the phones when your FFL calls in your app? Mine sure do. Respectfully, who are you to say that any of my money should be spent on such a thing?

I'm nobody, but despite how personally you seem to take it, my opinion doesn't cost you a dime.  However, the members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, who are elected and serve in accordance with the Constitution, and who passed legislation in accordance with the Constitution, and the President of the United States, elected in accordance with the Constitution, who signed the legislation into law, in accordance with the Constitution, say your tax dollars should go to it.  Take it up with them.

It may not be a difficult burden to bear, I grant you, but it is illegal from a purist's interpretation of the Constitution. Nowhere in that document does it say criminals may not own firearms. That makes sense. Owning a firearm is not a crime. Using one in the commission of a crime is wrong, and there are laws already in place to deal with that eventuality. Nowhere in that document does it say these rights are granted only to those willing to pay a fee. A NICS check and the various other fees associated with acquiring a firearm, apart from the cost of the firearm itself are superfluous and a thinly-veiled means to fleece taxpayers.

When someone commits a crime, they waive certain rights.  Period.

The Constitution was never designed to be the sole source of law in this country.  There is this pervasive view on this site that if it is not in the Constitution, it's not right.  That's bullshit.  The Constitution included a legislature and the "necessary and proper" clause for a reason.

height=8

The Constitution was never designed to be the sole source of law in this country. There is this pervasive view on this site that if it is not in the Constitution, it's not right. That's bullshit.

I have no problem with that comment. But I have a problem with the supreme law of the land -- the constitution -- being superceded by legislators and judges with a certain political preference.

The SCOTUS is not infalible, nor are jurists nonpartisan. You do yourself a disservice if you blindly agree with every ruling the SCOTUS makes.

height=8

When someone commits a crime, they waive certain rights. Period.

When does an individual cease to be a criminal? While enduring incarceration, a prisoner has very limited rights. What about after s/he gets out? Has s/he not paid his/her debt to society?

Quoted: The Constitution was never designed to be the sole source of law in this country. There is this pervasive view on this site that if it is not in the Constitution, it's not right. That's bullshit. I have no problem with that comment. But I have a problem with the supreme law of the land -- the constitution -- being superceded by legislators and judges with a certain political preference. The SCOTUS is not infalible, nor are jurists nonpartisan. You do yourself a disservice if you blindly agree with every ruling the SCOTUS makes.

I do not.  However, they are who they are, and what they say is law, whether we like it or not.  The way to change law is through the political process, which is slow and imperfect, but it's the system we have.  This is one of the burdens of having a representative government.  The alternative is dictatorship.

When someone commits a crime, they waive certain rights. Period. When does an individual cease to be a criminal? While enduring incarceration, a prisoner has very limited rights. What about after s/he gets out? Has s/he not paid his/her debt to society?

I think there are differing levels of payments and punishment.  Certain rights are restored when incarceration ends, and some are not.  As far as I am concerned, when someone commits a serious offense, say kidnapping or murder, I do not feel that they should have all their rights restored, ever.  To me it's a matter of personal accountability and responsibility.

height=8

The way to change law is through the political process, which is slow and imperfect, but it's the system we have.

Of course! So when I read that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is the supreme law of the land, I'm left scratching my head wondering why my state gov't has said "You can only own these arms, and only after we have examined you carefully." On what authority do they do this? None that is legal, technically.

height=8

Certain rights are restored when incarceration ends, and some are not.

Yes, I understand that's the way it works. I'm only questioning it's origin. Criminals should be punished appropriately for their crimes. Rights that are acknowledged by the constitution cannot be abridged by any legislation or ruling once the punishment/payment has been rendered, unless that abridgement is stipulated in the constitution. If such an abridgement is not stipulated, it cannot be abridged. As you said, there is a process for amending the law. If amending is necessary, follow the process. Otherwise, follow the law as it is written.

Corollary: if we say "We don't want murderers or rapists to own handguns" then perhaps the punishments we're giving are too weak. Rape, murder, child abuse and probably other acts should be met with an execution order. Once a piece of vermin has assumed room temperature, the issue of whether or not to block his access to firearms become somewhat moot.

I'm really not trying to be pedantic and blindly literal. But jurists and legislators have been playing it fast and loose with the constitution for far too long. We cut all kinds of slack to criminals, spit on victims, and shaft the general populace in the process. Call me crazy, but that pisses me off.

Getting back to the original post, I maintain that the constitution acknowledges our rights to own arms, without exception to the type of arm or the nature of the owner. Furthermore, states are charging a fee to grant you a permit which you already have in the second amendment. The amount of the fee is unimportant. What is important is that a governing body is a) determining whether or not to grant you a right already acknowledged by the constitution, and b) charging you for the "service" of making that determination.

six weeks and no FID yet.  Will be traveling for the next 3-4 weeks to west coast, texas, and Florida.  Hopefully when I get back in mid May,  I should have my FID.  NJ is a unique place to live.....

Hey at least when I get back it should be warm here.

Quoted: Not to be a dick, but this is your personal interpretation of this matter and is contrary to a couple centuries of constitutional jurisprudence. It finds very little support outside of your own mind. Respectfully, there actually is some degree of support for the dangerously radical concept of following the constitution as it's written, without nuanced interpretation. These ideas didn't originate with me. (Note: I'm not saying the constitution is perfect. But it sucks a good deal less than any other document of its type.) When we say the plain English in the constitution does not necessarily mean what we slack-jawed, knuckle-draggin' mouth-breather laymen think it means, we elevate those who do interpret it -- judges -- to the station of High Priest with whom none shall argue. When we tolerate legislators drafting laws that contravene a superior authority, we have lost a great deal more than whatever constraints are put on us by that one law. Call me crazy, but that plucks my nerves.

bkt,

I like the way you think, you need to post more often.

Rich V

Quoted: Welcome to the politics of NJ. Fair? Of course not. Don't look for any positive change either. CCW? Forget it, It's never going to happen. Get use to the corrupt system or move. There will be no positive changes in NJ firearms laws, ever. I received my Firearms ID card in 1973. Things have only gotten worse and will continue.

That one of the reasons Im moving to FL

In addition to the high taxes, traffic, traffic tickets, lower paying jobs, higher cost of living and the entitlement issues that the people have here.

I hear you,  NJ has been rough this first year.  my school taxes went 40 %, and my company moved to Norwalk CT.  Might need to look at other options,  but the wife loves it here.  

Is the $54 you pay include fingerprinting because my town charged me an additional $20 for fingerprinting on top of the $54.

Luigi

Luigi,

They only charged me:

$54.00 payable to the state bureau of investigation, finger printing

$5.00 payable to the Local PD for the actual FID Card

$2.00  payable to the local PD for  each handgun permit to purchase.


The $20.00 extra may be a local charge, check with PK90 on the boards.

The $20 was probably for Form #SBI-212A and 1 permit.  I do not know your circumstances.

No, he said it was for fingerprinting and I didn't pay the additional $5 or $2 (but I did read on the State trooper website it was required).  There was a sign at the desk, $10 for every set of fingerprints and he took two sets.

luigi

height=8

bkt, I like the way you think, you need to post more often. Rich V

Well, I have these wayward notions that this country would be better off if we did not follow in the footsteps of our European brethren who have pretty well mortally screwed up their own countries through socialism, disarmament, and "tolerance uber alles".

I'm all for live-and-let-live, but there's a limit.

Thanks for the kind words. I sure don't want to make waves and this forum is best used for AR-related stuff. There seem to be a few posts on bills and other proposed legislation that runs afoul of the Framer's intentions, so I'll be sure to pipe up from time to time.

Quoted: bkt, I like the way you think, you need to post more often. Rich V Well, I have these wayward notions that this country would be better off if we did not follow in the footsteps of our European brethren who have pretty well mortally screwed up their own countries through socialism, disarmament, and "tolerance uber alles". I'm all for live-and-let-live, but there's a limit. Thanks for the kind words. I sure don't want to make waves and this forum is best used for AR-related stuff. There seem to be a few posts on bills and other proposed legislation that runs afoul of the Framer's intentions, so I'll be sure to pipe up from time to time.

Unlike the technical forums the hometown forums are open to all topics, just stay within the COC.

Back to the topic.
I fully agree with a strict interpretation of the constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.
None of this living document interpretation BS, they wrote it in plain clear terms and every one of the fist 10 amendments is very clear with little room for interpretation.
Under the 2nd we should have full access to arms and be free to carry them, no license, no fees no shit!

Rich V

got it after 7+weeks