States pick and choose what they will accept from other states based on public policy choices articulated by their legislatures.
She had already spent 40 days in jail before being able to post bond, and the diversionary program would have left her with a felony conviction, which is, I imagine, why the story you quote says she’d “…have to give up her .380 caliber Bersa Thunder…” And surrender any other firearms she owns, and not purchase or possess any others anywhere in the country, and be unable to vote if she moved to Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, or Virginia, and be disqualified for working for, say, the TSA for seven years, and she could never serve on a federal jury.
But that’s a light sentence for someone who actually was evil enough to want to own a firearm, right? She deserved it.
What’s unreasonable about it? She demonstrated that she is incapable of complying with gun laws. Sure, you can paint it as a trivial offense, but that is true of many crimes yet we don’t extend the same courtesy to most accused felons.
Well, the point of this thread is the discussion of an overarching federal law that would eliminate the gun law situation with which she found difficulty.
So the point might be, “It’s unreasonable to impose so many different regulatory frameworks when the underlying right is of clear constitutional dimension, and her difficulty in complying with the law is a poor result we wish to avoid.”
Am I wrong in understanding that this proposed law wouldn’t have effected her situation?
I believe you are wrong in that understanding. The point of the proposed law is for all states to recognize carry permits from other states as valid.
Perhaps you are confusing the previous discussion regarding “safe transport” of guns through a state, or to and from one’s home and other authorized place of storage, repair, use, etc… That is different than having a carry permit which allows you to have a loaded firearm in the passenger compartment.
Hard to keep track of all of the laws and regulations, isn’t it?
Yeah…although I probably would have bothered to find out what the rules were beforehand if I had taken on the responsibility of getting a Concealed Carry License.
I don’t disagree with you, but I also have a little compassion for people who make honest mistakes that don’t hurt anybody. I recognize that this woman lived in Philly, which is just across the river from NJ, so she should have been more aware. But, how aware can people reasonably be expected to be of laws in 50 different states, plus variances between counties and cities? In PA, our legislators are fighting to pass a law which will disallow counties, townships, cities and boroughs from enacting their own gun laws, to keep the law consistent across the state. I’m firmly in favor of that law, too. Without looking it up, I think PA probably has 1,000 or more political jurisdictions. It would be insane to let each one come up with their own carry regulations.
I also think the punishment should be reasonable… perhaps a little education and community service, not a felony charge and months or years behind bars.
The article said that the jail time that was initially threatened before it was reduced to the community service that was usually given in those cases was because the DA wanted to set an example, which certainly leads one to think that there has been an ongoing problem with people bringing guns over state lines in that manner, maybe for nefarious purposes.
Yes, you are wrong. At least insofar as the House version (HR 38) goes.
If HR 38 were law, then the driver here would have been:
[ul]
[li]a person [/li][li]who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm[/li][li]who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person[/li][li]who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permit permits the person to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides[/li][/ul]
Those conditions being met, HR 38 would have entitled her to:
[ul]
[li]possess or carry a concealed handgun[/li][li]in any State that has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm[/li][li]which New Jersey does[/li][/ul]
I haven’t yet gone through the Senate version, so I express no opinion on its effect.
Putting the gun issue aside, I always cringe and shake my head when I hear about prosecutors wanting “to set an example”. How about treating people fairly?
But the felony conviction would have remained. And unless New Jersey has a time machine, the forty days she spent in jail before being able to post bail would also have remained.
As it has for all the cases that happened before hers. Where are their pardons?
I don’t know about the disposition of any other cases. Which ones do you believe are similar enough that they should also be pardoned?
As long as such decisions are made by those who depend on votes to keep their jobs, then “Let me show you how tough I am on crime!” situations are going to happen.
But the House version overrules local restrictions on the manner of transport, which we all agree (I think) is ridiculous. Allen would have been required to carry her gun in the trunk, unloaded, under the Senate version.
Not as I understand it. If you are a concealed weapon permit holder in New Jersey, you are allowed to carry a concealed firearm on your person when traveling in a vehicle.
No, I disagree.
S. 446 still provides that “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.”
New Jersey concealed carry permit holders, all nine of them 
, are permitted to carry a handgun loaded while driving. Under this legislation, that same standard would have been applied to the driver at issue here.
That’s the way I understand it, too. A permit to “carry” is different from federal and state rules regarding “transport”, as in to and from allowed locations, or through a state on a car trip, for example, by people who do not have a carry permit. This has been mentioned several times.
And you are just a bit low on your NJ carry permit figure, though not by much. 
According to the most recent data I could find, NJ had 1,212 carry permit holders in a state with a population of 8.9M, or 0.014 percent of the population. This compares with 570,464 holders (5.79 percent of the population) in North Carolina and 363,274 holders (4.40 percent) in Virginia, the two states with the most similar populations. My state, PA has 872,277 carry permit holders, or 6.8 percent of the population. NJ just edges out Hawaii for granting the fewest permits per capita.
FWIW, I’m pretty sure that the reason for the “protections” built into the bill (e.g. sections © and (d)) is the state of New Jersey (and NYC) and their history of ignoring FOPA’s safe passage provisions. The most egregious example I’m aware of was in 2005, when Utah resident Greg Revell’s flight was delayed, causing him to miss a connection in Newark. He had to collect his bags and spend the night in a hotel. The next day, when he tried to recheck his bag for the final leg of his flight, he was arrested for illegal possession. The charges were dropped months later, but it took him 3 years to get his gun back.
And (e)(2) is a little bit of a “f*** your standard-capacity mag ban”