New Jersey Shuts Down NICS Background Check Access for Unknown Length of Time

public housing east st. Louis gun ban


Those who live in New Jersey have been given a “shelter in place” order. The order includes the closure of whatever the New Jersey government considers non-essential businesses, and on that list is every FFL in the state.

This notice has been posted to the New Jersey Portal NICS page:

Screenshot from the New Jersey Portal stating they are removing the “request form” option for NICS, meaning lawful firearms sales are now on indefinite hold.

Remember, in New Jersey all firearms sales must go through an FFL including private sales. Background checks are required by law.

With the ability to start a new form now taken away by order of Governor Murphy all lawful firearms sales are effectively halted with no date of reinstatement of those rights being given.

Forms processed prior to 9:00 EST March 21, 2020 can still be viewed through the portal, but since FFLs have been deemed non-essential in New Jersey will anyone even be at the gun stores to finish those sales?

View the website for yourself here. Familiarize yourself with New Jersey’s laws and the restrictions on private sales, which were created by Governor Murphy, here and take a look at this article about how New Jersey has the second toughest gun laws in the country (right behind California).



  1. avatar Model 31 says:

    I guess all the voter registration efforts will be shutdown for an equal amount of time as well.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      Voter registration and NICS is an on-line process. I thought the whole point of closing businesses is to avoid personal contact. Every on-line paper type business should still be ok. Government rules always have unintended consequences? You’ve seen the OSHA tire/rope swing cartoon, right?

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        The tire/rope is a classic.

        I have a feeling there will be a surge in lawsuits later this year challenging all these Orders. I’ll be willing to donate extra $$ to the orgs (FPC, GOA) that pursue them.

        1. avatar Eric Rosso says:

          No you won’t…You’ll be far more likely to spend that money on food.

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Some of us prepared long ago for a time such as this.

      2. avatar John Hull says:

        New Jersey doesn’t give a damn about stopping the virus. They are only interested in taking power away from the people. Doing what they’re doing is nothing less than a negation of the 2nd Amendment.

      3. avatar BenjiMac says:

        I don’t know anything about NJ voter registration, but NICS is on-line only for licensed dealers. If all the licensed dealers are closed, there is nobody left who can access NICS. The point of turning NICS off is to enforce dealer closings. I think the dealers normally sell other things that do not require a NICS check, but they are not supposed to be doing that either right now (in NJ). No I do not like the draconian way this is being handled. We did not act this way during the H1N1 epidemic of 2009. And many people died.

        1. avatar AKM Sarah says:

          It seems Nevada NICS is down now also.

        2. avatar edward kenway's ghost says:

          The situation in NJ is being aggravated intentionally by Filthy Phil Murphy and his crony Attorney General. These are two focktards among many in this state who will never waste an excuse to tax, regulate, or restrict the rights and privileges of normal people. I consider them as little more than political vermin.
          One thing you need to understand about Jersey. It’s a rigged Democrat machine run by political kickbacks, unionism, and cronyism at all levels of the state administration right down to the fricking local school boards and sheriff’s offices. Although there are some individual exceptions here and there NO ONE reaches any sort of influential office without being a crook of some sort in the Garbage State.

        3. avatar Mr Luigi says:

          Ya see, Here how it works..if this Wonderful state “New Germany” isn’t receiving residuals from small businesses they are required to shut down !
          Now, state stores like liquor stores and other businesses that this wonderful state receives money from stay open..

  2. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Why did it take NJ so long?

    1. avatar Dwo888 says:

      Either you lived in NJ, or lived next door (Pennsylvania) like me and know The People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of New Jersey well.

      I’ve seen the scared/happy/guilty look on refugees faces when their first gun purchase is made without licking the police chief’s bunghole for a handgun the first time. Just fill out the 4473, they run the check through PICS (Pennsylvania Insta Check) system and they take the gun home. On the spot!

      The confused looks when they learn they can get a carry license is less time than it took them to get a handgun purchase permit in NJ. The shock when they realize that if they can purchase a gun, they are almost 99.99999% sure they get the LTCF (License To Carry Firearms). It’s only $20 for five years!

      They can buy any legal gun. No magazine restrictions, nothing! Just what you can afford is the limit.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Either you lived in NJ, or lived next door (Pennsylvania) like me and know The People’s Democratic Socialist Republic of New Jersey well.”

        Do VISTA and the Peace Corps still train for third world conditions, in Camden?

        1. avatar Rad Man says:

          Anywhere in North Jersey would be suitable. I spent the late 80s there. Lovely.

        2. avatar Dwo888 says:

          No, the death/injury rate got to high, and they sent them to Somalia instead.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, the death/injury rate got to high, and they sent them to Somalia instead.”

          Thanx for the update.

          And the chuckle.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        Now imagine how would they react in a state that actually follows the 2A and has constitutional carry!

        1. avatar Eric says:

          Arizona is a 2A State. And I love it ! Born and raised in South Jersey left to join Army came back left in 2010 never looked back.
          Now an NRA FIREARM INSTRUCTOR and have many guns .

  3. avatar Dennis says:

    Could be wrong, but I believe that’s illegal! At the very least unconstitutional, don’t suppose it’s a trial balloon do ya?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “At the very least unconstitutional,…”

      Public safety (including health) is a “compelling government interest” which can nullify a natural, human and civil right. 2A is subordinate to the need of society. Individuals cannot ignore their responsibility to the rest of the public to not spread dangerous disease.

      You can’t shoot a virus, but it is essential you have access to drugs and sex.

      You gotta git cher mind right.

      1. avatar Debbie W. says:

        RE: Sam @ 12:30…
        A useful idiot can try explaining “compelling government interests” to home invaders, thieves, perverts and the like. Good luck with that.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          My comment was intentionally complex and multi-threaded. Let those who have eyes see, and those who have ears hear.

          Wish I didn’t have to explain this…..

          Part of the comment was related to legal precedent. Part was ridicule. Part was thought provoking. Part was intellectual challenge.

          Not much is as simple as it appears (trust no one over 30). Simple things may endure forever (such as “evil never rests”), but life is complex, requiring more than superficial thought and analysis.

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          “…but life is complex, requiring more than superficial thought and analysis.”

          facts *grumble* logic *grumble*

          Dammit Sam have another drink and stop talking sense.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Dammit Sam have another drink and stop talking sense.”

          That wasn’t me, I swear. It was as if my hands were acting all by themselves, like some kind of poltergeist inhabited them, operating all on their own. It was, like, you know, uuuhhmm, really scary.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        “Compelling government interest” is solely based on judicial activism.

        Nowhere in the Constitution does it permit suspension of any part of the Bill of Rights because of a “compelling government interest”.

        A true Originalist judge would not allow it. If a judge allows suspension of any enumerated unalienable natural right because of a “compelling government interest”, that judge not a true Originalist and is dishonoring the Founders.

        Of course, you have a civic duty to not spread infection if your exercising your rights would likely cause that to happen.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “A true Originalist judge would not allow it.”

          I disagree only with the above sentence. But, maybe we have never seen a “true Originalist”?

        2. avatar John Hull says:

          Yes, we did. Antonin Scalia. And the Left murdered him.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Yes, we did. Antonin Scalia.”

          An originalist who would acceped “compelling government interest” in the form of “reasonable restrictions” (my conclusion) on RTKBA.

          At random: Scalia notes in Heller the the opinion of the majority does not “…suggest the invalidity of laws regulating the storage of firearms to prevent accidents.” Also, “The Court of Appeals did not invalidate the licensing requirement,…” And then, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on….laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

          Not finding an “originalist”, or “textualist” in the excerpts from Heller. “The opinion went beyond questions raised in the case and laid out a rationale by which Congress, states, and courts could ban the private possession of many offensive and defensive arms today and all such arms of the future.”
          – –

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Mad Max,

          Nowhere in the Constitution does it permit suspension of any part of the Bill of Rights because of a “compelling government interest”.

          While you are technically correct and satisfied the “letter of the law”, you failed one aspect of the “spirit of the law” where the United States Constitution says,

          “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” — United States Constitution, Article 1, Section 9

          This is an example where even the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to infringe on our rights for a “compelling government interest”.

          I don’t like it and I am not defending it. I am simply stating the facts.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I am simply stating the facts.”

          Which can get you a bunch of hate mail. Several folks here dispute the idea that one can explain without endorsing.

        6. avatar AllArms says:


          “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion”

          The statement is dependent on this clause. It is only in these two cases, nothing else.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          If you want to start to understand Scalia’s opinions and how his view interfaced with actual SCOTUS opinions I suggest Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System, Ronald Dworkin’s Progressive response and Scalia’s reply to Dworkin.

          Scalia had his own world-view but at times was forced to mediate it to join the majority and craft SCOTUS decisions because he understood that he couldn’t let improvement be the enemy of perfection.

          Sometimes he simply dissented and wrote an opinion as to why but sometimes he knew his vote was crucial and dissenting for his own reasons would create a situation in which SCOTUS’ decision was worse precedent than what could be had by joining a majority. Sometimes he was forced to break with pure texualism to stop what he considered a greater evil: an interpretation of the Constitution as a “living document”, of which he said “If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will, by God, write it the way the majority wants it; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This is, of course, the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. By trying to make the Constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all”.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Scalia…couldn’t let improvement be the enemy of perfection.”

          Thus, a practicalist? “Improvement” seems a odd characterization. Making a thing less bad is not an “improvement.” Consider, a doctor tells a patient, “Your right leg was so badly damaged we had to amputate. But we were able to save the left leg.” Not losing both legs did not improve the patient’s condition, only made it less worse.

          One only improves something by taking it from its originally intended condition, and adding features to provide increased capability. The only way to improve upon the Second Amendment is for the SC to declare it absolute, under all conditions, everywhere, at all times.

        9. avatar strych9 says:

          *perfection be the enemy of improvement. Sorry, the dogs are bored and bothering me whenever I sit down to do anything.

        10. avatar strych9 says:

          Scalia considered himself a textualist.

          He didn’t consider the Constitution nor statutory law to be “open to interpretation” via the judiciary. The text is the text. Where the text is unclear, imprecise, in conflict with other statutory law or the Constitution is a problem for the legislature to remedy as it might. The only thing that mattered in terms of the text, in reference to say the Constitution, is what the words in the text meant at the time the text was created.

          To Scalia intent wasn’t a consideration nor was “interpretation”. His reasoning being “interpretation” would substitute the opinion of a judge for the opinion of the legislature when a judge said (under optimal circumstances here mind you) “Well, the legislature is made up of reasonable people and I’m a reasonable person so obviously the legislature meant [whatever the judge happens to think]”.

          Further, with intent, as he points out in that piece I referenced: Suppose Congress passes legislation and the POTUS signals absolute intent to sign it. The Bill is passed by both houses but not yet signed by the POTUS, is it law? Obviously it is not law because it has not passed all the hurdles to be a law. Yet it is the intent of both the Legislature and the Executive, clearly stated intent to boot. That intent is meaningless until the Bill is signed into Law.

          All that said, look at the difference in what he wrote in terms of his personal opinion on Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States (1892) and the actual SCOTUS opinion he authored in Heller. The latter is clearly a compromise between his textualist position and the reality of the world in terms of managing to find in favor of Heller as opposed to the District. The latter opinion is obviously textualism but in a limited manner because Scalia recognized that textualism has to be taken on a case by case basis and compare the text of a statute to that of the Constitution. This requires cases on each topic, not the broad, sweeping court opinion that WE would like because to author a very broad opinion in such a manner would not be textualism but rather, by ignoring the individual cases, Scalia would have been substituting his opinion for that of the legislature in a wide variety of cases where the text itself had not actually been examined.

          We might have preferred them to ignore the text and strike down every “obvious” infringement but that’s not a principled approach and Scalia was wary of the fact that if he can do that for what *we* like then others on the Court or in a different court could take the same approach and make broad, sweeping decisions that *we* don’t like. In that sense he’s authoring a narrow interpretation that’s meant to 1) do the right thing as much as possible while 2) constraining future decisions that might be wrong.

        11. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Scalia recognized that textualism has to be taken on a case by case basis and compare the text of a statute to that of the Constitution. ”

          Testualism should be the beginning and end of any decision. Situation: 2A says “shall not be infringed”. Government (of whichever level) passes a law restricting the locations of where firearms are allowed. SC analysis should be as follows: Issue – regulation regarding location of where firearms are allowed.

          Analysis- Is the item in dispute considered to be an “arm” (weapon)? Answer, yes. Does 2A text prohibit infringement on bearing arms? Yes. Does the regulation restrict (infringe) on the bearing of arms? Yes.

          Decision – the regulation is unconstitutional at its base, and not permitted, anywhere.

          What I cannot overlook about Scalia is his approving comment in Gonzales v. Raich related to the decision in Wickard v. Filburn, in which the SC decided that a farmer retaining some of his product for personal/family use somehow violates the “commerce clause”. Scalia’s approval of Wickard defies common sense, and nothing in the thinking of the founders would have ever allowed that the commerce clause prohibits a citizen from both feeding himself, and conducting commerce intra, or inter state.

          A “textualist” should apply the same reasoning to all cases regarding interstate commerce. The text of the clause does not change. A textualist would be hostage to the text, regardless of the desirability of the outcome. See, a textualist must read the text consistently. Otherwise we have a textualist who ignores the text when “reason” prefers a result (for whatever reason) that stretches the text.

        12. avatar strych9 says:

          The issue Sam is that within a textualists world-view the analysis you suggest has to be run on each and every one of those issues. It cannot be run as a general scheme because to do so, by definition, would be to disregard the individual texts of the statutes in question.

          And, SCOTUS doesn’t have time to hear a case, nor has it been offered a case, on every single one of those issues. Ergo, in Scalia’s world-view the SCOTUS can only deal with what is before it and in any given year it cannot hear nothing but 2A cases. With 20,000+ regulations to be reviewed and the SCOTUS taking 100-150 cases per year it would take 133/4 years to hear all those cases while doing nothing else.

          Further, when you say “What I cannot overlook about Scalia is his approving comment in Gonzales v. Raich related to the decision in Wickard v. Filburn…” I am at a loss as to how Scalia is “approving” of Wickard when he uses it as an example in the manner in which he does.

          He doesn’t cite the case other than in his notes on the opinion in Raich, and does so in a tangential manner which is meant to absolve him from having to write a much longer opinion rehashing Wickard as well as a number of cases related to it. He’s not arguing that he supports the outcome in the Wickard case, he’s saying that a the court in 1942 had a somewhat similar choice to McCulloh, Printz Morrison and Lopez and is suggesting that Wickard is further reading in regard to those cases which appear to be solely Commerce Clause (CC) cases but which may actually fall under the Necessary and Proper Clause (NPC) or those which, in some cases, may fall under the CC due to the NPC because of the fact that confining Congress solely to the CC would result in striking down laws properly made under the NPC and thereby undercut Congress’ authority to pass those laws at all with regard to certain things. His overall point is that while we may disagree with Congress’ schedule of marijuana they do have the right to regulate things in a manner that might seem off on it’s face but in reality prevent Congress’ authority from being undercut by a state law which is in direct opposition to the will on Congress.

          Wickard is a bad decision because it’s based on the CC, an interpretation that greatly expanded government power “under the CC” and did so erroneously. However, that doesn’t mean that in certain instances the power for Congress to regulate intrastate commerce as part of it’s regulation of interstate commerce cannot be found elsewhere. To place that authority within the CC is erroneous and lazy and it leads to abuse. To place it properly, in theory, limits Congress’ claims to power and allows them to regulate as necessary without giving them a “wide lane” that they can abuse. I think that’s Scalia’s point, not that he necessarily agreed with the outcome in Wickard itself.

          Consider a hypothetical case: The US passes a law that every male in the US who obtains the age of majority shall purchase a rifle, pistol and ammo matched to militia service because they are all, by definition under statutory law, members of either the organized or unorganized militia. The law also provides funding for this in cases where to run out and buy this would put undue stress on finances of the family to which the person turning 18 belongs.

          However, the law also prescribes that the weapons in question shall not be stored in an “unsafe” manner, defined by the law as easily obtainable by prohibited persons, children or otherwise dangerous individuals. It then applies the “reasonable man” test to what is or what is not “unsafe storage” and provides further funding for those who need assistance in meeting the requirements.

          So in no regard do we have an unfunded mandate here but we have other questions. Does this law violate the 2A due to it’s safe storage requirements, which it pays for? What about other parts of the Constitution? What about privacy? Freedom of association? Does 10 U.S. Code § 246, which the law bases it’s age requirements on, violate any part of the Constitution?

          It’s really easy to say that the answer that SCOTUS should provide is obvious but the truth is that it’s not that easy. There are a number of considerations with the law I hypothesize above and just because we like the intent of the law doesn’t mean that the law is necessarily something we should support.

        13. avatar Sam I Am says:

          If a federal court can issue a nation-wide injunction for all cases not before the bench, but similar, what prevents the SC from ruling that all similar violations of the constitutional question are prohibited? Yes, separate violations would need to be presented, but all related issues could be included in the decision. Indeed, is not Heller being cited as controlling in all circumstances, throughout the nation?

          Nothing in the constitution requires the SC only rule on the single case be fore it. If the court can mandate a system of constitutional review to be applied, what is the law that prohibits rulings be applied to all like instances? Answer is court procedure, which is not subject to review or alteration by congress or the president.

          In the fictional instance presented, the SC could rule that any regulation that infringes on 2A must meet the plain language of the Second Amendment, or is immediately rendered inoperative. The courts set tests for validity of laws any number of times. The SC could certainly set the rule that for any enumerated right protected by the constitution, the test is whether the government’s action places restrictions on rights which, by the nature of the BOR and constitution, are removed from the power of the government to alter.

          A textualist cannot stray far from being an absolutist. If the constitution does not specifically delegate a power, no amount of “reason” can create such a power, nor can it can set the enumerated right aside.

          The SC is a power unto itself. If the SC so chooses, it can certainly broaden the applicability of a ruling to reach any existing, or proposed, law that likewise clearly violates the text.

        14. avatar strych9 says:

          You’re moving the goalposts here Sam.

          We’re discussing Scalia because that’s where this topic started between you and Mr. Hull.

          I was speaking strictly of Scalia’s view on the subjects at hand and of no one else. He made his views clear in numerous pieces of writing that he produced, writings which virtually no one who talks about the man seems to have read. He very clearly understood the difference between being principled and being dogmatic.

          What you’re now discussing is a joinder. Yes, that’s possible, but it still requires that cases be brought and then joined. It cannot be done preemptively as you’re seeming to suggest here. A bunch of cases could be joined and then a bunch of laws struck down at once. However, new laws would then have to be compared to those previous decisions.

          Yes, it would be nice if the SCOTUS could say “No law that goes against the plain language of the 2A is valid”, and in theory they could do that. But that would not and could not prevent laws going against thhe plain language of the 2A from being passed and signed into law. At that point the law would have to be struck down by judicial review, repealed by the legislative method or, in some places, repealed by a plebiscite. Just like making any particular law does not force people to follow it, merely it assigns a punishment for getting caught and convicted of breaking that law, no case real or theoretical decided by SCOTUS can prevent future unconstitutional legislation and where that legislation becomes law it requires a lawsuit to get it before a court that can review the law, compare it to the Constitution and precedent and then strike it down.

          Further still, you state that “no amount of “reason” can create such a power” if the Constitution doesn’t delegate it. This is patently untrue. There are necessary logical outgrowths of the Constitution, and really of any legal code. That’s been understood for a few thousand years and it’s literally THE reason a court and legal system exist. The Constitution doesn’t codify our right to write words on computers and exchange ideas electronically but the 1A very clearly protects the right to do so. Nor does the 1A explicitly allow for journalists to use such new technology but quite clearly the Press has the right to use electronic media and not just an actual physical printing press.

          The same is true of the body of the Constitution. It’s a framework and an anchor point, not an explicit instruction manual. The Founders understood that the Constitution, nor any legal framework, could cover any and all possible circumstances that might arise because it’s not possible to know those situations in the present, never mind in advance. This is exactly why the 1A and 2A are general rights while the 4A is far more explicit.

        15. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not moving goal posts. Merely launching a new tangent.

          Bottom line, a textualist is beholden to the written word. Yes, warped and twisted politics resulted in new powers being imagined and created that the original texts did not permit. That is not, however, “textualism”. Thus my statement that a textualist is hostage to the written word. Once the textualist wanders from the text, “reason” enters, and one person’s (jurist’s) “reason” is as valid as another…it all depends on the politics of getting other persons (jurists) to go along with the reasoning.

          I can respect the characterization of a jurist “leaning toward the ‘textualist’/’originalist’ sense of jurisprudence, but that is not the same as actually being a “textualist”/”origionalist”. The whole point of my comments. Manage expectations. Know what you are getting, do not hoodwink yourself.

      3. avatar Kyle says:

        “Compelling government interest” only flies with intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, at least from my understanding of it.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Not correct. Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of court review. Under that standard, a judge must strike down a law unless the government shows three things:

          1. The law is necessary to a “compelling state interest”;
          2. The law is “narrowly tailored” to achieving this compelling purpose;
          3. The law uses the “least restrictive means” to achieve the purpose.

          Strict scrutiny applies when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, for example those in the BoR, or when a government action applies to a “suspect classification” such as race.

          Thus ends the lesson.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Compelling government interest” only flies with intermediate scrutiny, not strict scrutiny, at least from my understanding of it.

          Actually, “compelling government interest” would be the cause for a case rising to strict scrutiny. Government must present a compelling case that without subordination of constitutional rights, damage would so severe as to prevent government from exercising its delegated powers. The strict scrutiny would require not only the “compelling interest”, but proof that the measure to be enforced/enacted is a narrowly constructed remedy to address only the matter at hand, and the intended government action is the only way to address the situation. By default, if the courts uphold the intended government action, government has a “compelling interest”.

        3. avatar Kyle says:

          Coolbeans, I stand corrected.

      4. avatar Hillbilly says:

        The Founders of this country thought completely different. The needs of the many vs the needs of the few. It’s a popular arguement but wrong. The rights of the individual always go before the state. Unfortunately the courts refuse to embrace this even though the Founders made it very clear in their writings.

        You always have the concern trolls: But people will get hurt and killed! As they clutch their pearls. That is how free society works it is your job to minimize your risk including protecting yourself not the Governements. One of the few things the court has gotten right. Of course it does not mean a while lot while they continue to allow all the infringements on your ability to do such. So it’s a catch 22 they allow you to be disarmed and then when you sue because these things happen they tell you it is your job to protect yourself.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The founders would not have countenanced the notion that a town, city, state could not quarantine a person with bubonic plague, in the name of public(health) safety. The idea of absolute individual sovereignty (rights) holds that there is no community, no society, only a collection of co-located personages, with no obligation to consider individual actions in a larger context, of any sort. This is the core of anarchy.

          Under the idea of absolute individual sovereignty, no laws can be installed that penalize a person for ignoring traffic signals, even the requirement to drive along appointed pathways (“lanes” would not exist). People would be allowed to travel at whatever speed they wish. Food safety laws would be extinct (such laws infringe upon the right of individuals to offer their wares via any production means they like, and the right of other individuals to consume such wares, or choose a different vendor).

          Every law that protects other individuals from the actions of a single individual would be voided. Even “moral” laws such as prohibition of murder, infringe upon the individual for the sake of the public good (safety) would be an impermissible infringement.

          We often base our idea of what is/is not constitutional upon that which pleases, or displeases, us at the moment, without thinking things through to the logical conclusion. The founders has a theory of operation known as “enlightened self-interest” (an attempt to make “do unto others…” seem intellectually brilliant). That is, people would restrain themselves from excess because they would else be required to allow themselves to be victim of the excesses of others. The founders understood that individuals had to exist within the construct of organized units (society).

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sam is correct, the founders recognized that society could indeed limit the rights of the individuals in order to protect society.

          The concept of quarantine is on point in this situation, it grants a prohibition on freedom of movement that seems at odds with the BOR.

          The United States is based on the concept of the rights of individuals being subjugated to the needs of the society, the motto of the United States is ‘out of many, one’.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Sam is correct…”

          Well, snot. Strych9 is not going to be happy about that.

        4. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          We appear to be in a perpetual struggle over this whole “The good of the many vs. the rights of the individual” issue. WHY????

          Folks, it ain’t rocket math. Ask yourself one question: WHO decides what is ‘the good of the many’?? Congress? SCOTUS? POTUS? Or, perhaps, each individual decides for him or her self?

          EVERY policy decision is a tradeoff, a balancing of risks vs. rewards. I can make an argument for either side of any policy decision (don’t necessarily agree with them, but I can frame the argument). But the genius of the American system is that our Founders assumed/believed that the best person to make that determination for each American was . . . that individual American. NO ONE can know that person’s situation, or better analyze that person’s ‘best’ approach to that situation, than that individual.

          Congress can’t do it (even overlooking the fact that the average member of Congress has the IQ of a doorknob). SCOTUS can’t do it. POTUS can’t do it. To pick the obvious example, Donald J. Trump has NO FRICKIN’ IDEA about me, my personal/financial situation, my options, etc. He is clueless. If he were my best friend, he’d have a second-hand and imperfect idea – so HE should make that decision, not me, right??

          Are you freakin’ daft?????????

          Yes, if we let individuals make their own decisions, some of them will make ‘bad’ decisions. From SOMEONE ELSE’S point of view. I see people take actions and make decisions literally all the time – from MY point of view. I may believe their decisions are stupid – based on my point of view. What I don’t have is a belief that, just because I disagree with their decision, that means I have the right to override it.

          But y’all do you. Embrace your version of the power of the rods and the axe. Then tell me about how freedom of speech or RKBA is “sacrosanct”. By what logic???????

          Frankly? P*** off, losers.

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We appear to be in a perpetual struggle over this whole “The good of the many vs. the rights of the individual” issue. WHY????”

          Because it is a conflict of interests that needs continual evaluation. Conditions may be different, but whenever individual actions come up against the group, the choice between the two is always at hand. No individual is totally sovereign. No individual has absolute rights. One can only ignore the group when a person lives completely disconnected, at all times (i.e. live alone with no contact of any sort, any time, with other persons.

          To repeat myself (which I love doing), the founders would not have permitted a person infected with bubonic plague to simply walk about the town to freely infect others. Such an infected person have been quarantined (via some method).

          The proof that individuals must sometimes surrender individual “rights” for the good of the many is in plain view for any who would look: the US constitution. Sovereign states surrendered some of their rights to the central government in order that the benefits of union could be provided the greatest number of people. By mathematical deduction, individuals in those states likewise surrendered some of their personal rights, as well.

          Every law on the books limits individual rights is one manner or another.

    2. avatar RGP says:

      I don’t think New Jersey particularly cares what is legal and what isn’t.

    3. avatar Huntmaster says:


    4. avatar MarkPA says:

      My take on this is: It’s WONDERFUL!

      A state is unilaterally infringing (breaking) the right to buy arms by shutting down access to NICS. It’s an on-line transaction so there is no public health excuse.

      Admittedly, for a transfer to take place, an FFL must unlock it’s doors and admit a customer (if it is going to sell a gun) or two customers (if it is going to officiate in a private-party transfer). However, such a face-to-face contact represents minimal public health exposure. The two or three individuals can all maintain social distance and use a lot of gel.

      In NJ the buyer would have to have an FOID and a permit to purchase a pistol if the gun were a pistol. So, the buyer/transferee is already cleared. To shut down NICS is to deny a civil right, which is demonstrably in evidence (per the FOID or permit to purchase) with no legitimate pretext.

      ANJR&PCs should be able to build a compelling case to take to a Federal District Court and up the line to SCOTUS.

  4. avatar Randy Jones says:

    Why should this surprise any of us. It might be a surprise to any of the ‘fence sitters’ who thought they join our ranks quickly, because getting a gun is easier than getting a library book or Sudafed. I would like to think this will wake up a number of people and have them eventually join our ranks.

    But I’m just a deplorable from fly-over country, a redneck who clings to my Bible and my guns.

  5. avatar Model 31 says:

    Well we can’t have all those new potential gun owners getting a new gat. Maybe they’ll drop the idea once the hype dies down.

  6. avatar Huntmaster says:

    It’s only a matter of time before they can remotely shut down your car, your debit card, your cell phone, close your bank accounts, and erase the title to your home. Oh and the electron firearms are part of the plan also.
    Or maybe I’m just paranoid.

    1. avatar Paul Hill says:

      That’s exactly Bloomberg’s plan for gun owners buy buying politicians.

  7. avatar d says:

    So, at time when law enforcement is NOT making arrests, and prisons are letting criminals OUT, the gov decides the people have not right to self defense? Did I get that right?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Did I get that right?”

      Naw. You jes’ reedin’ too much hard right disinformation. Ever thin is fine.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Nah… they decided that a long time ago. This is a crisis and they’ve decided not to let it go to waste.

  8. avatar Debbie W. says:

    Whatever excuse anti gun zealots can use to pee on the US CONSTITUTION they’ll use. If you are unfortunate enough to reside in a state with democrat azzhats at the helm you should always be a step ahead. Rest assured hypocrite gun grabbers have their 24/7 armed security.
    Gun Control…Its roots are in racism and genocide. When useful idiots vote for anti gun zealots they vote for Jim Crow Gun Control.

  9. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    There has always been a black market for any commodity restricted by the government. I wonder how long it will be before the black market in firearms/ammunition goes off the charts?

    1. avatar RGP says:

      Considering that there are people who have bought things like reloading components, and they don’t even know what it is that they’ve bought, and there are people who will ask with a straight face why you can’t fire .44 Magnum loads in your .454 Casull, I’m thinking a lot of the “first time buyers” intend to resell at a profit.

      1. avatar John Hull says:

        No, they’re just desperate people who have realized too late that they’ve been left holding the bag by those they put their faith in to protect them. They don’t know anything about guns, ammunition, reloading, etc. Trying to learn those things in the midst of a crisis when fear is driving your thinking is not the smartest thing you can do. But this is the typical response by liberals. In their self righteousness and hatred of those who refuse to be victims, their response when they realize they’ve been fed a bill of goods by the Left is very predictable. They will learn the hard way that being prepared is a way of life, and we won’t allow them to prevent us from doing that.

    2. avatar James Campbell says:

      This is EXACTLY what the left wants at this time.
      Black market activity (if provable) will be used post Kung Flu lockdown. The likes of EveryClown for Gun Safety, Demanding Mommies, Giffords Gun Grabbers will present examples of “illegal sales” to show the “sheeple” how horrible gun owners are.
      Smart firearm owners will resist the urge to sell items at this time. The exception would be sales to those holding identification that show them as legal firearm owners.

  10. avatar Manure49 says:

    The so-called rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are government benefits that can be revoked at any time.

    1. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Not so fast…Rights in question are God Given Natural Rights. Otherwise you’d be rooted like a tree where anyone can just come along and pee on you.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Not so fast…”

        Appropriate caution….when reading the comment from Manure49. The screen name is the first clue. The recitation of anti-gunner beliefs is the second clue.

  11. avatar enuf says:

    Illegal and un- Constitutional in so many ways it ain’t funny.

    Also when anyone tells you that buying guns is the wrong thing to do during the current mass hysteria, point to this sort of bullshit. Wanting to buy when told they cannot is a very basic human response and an especially American reaction. Tell people they cannot have a thing perfectly lawful thing, and may not engage in a natural and Constitutional Enumerated Right, and their desire to do so is amplified.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Illegal and un- Constitutional in so many ways”

      Have a look at the jurisprudence underlying “compelling government interest”. Individual rights are not absolute, nor are they superior to the rights of other individuals. You have a right to own a firearm, you have no right to transmit a deadly disease onto another individual. How do you reconcile those two conditions? You have a right to firearms, but you do not have a right buy them at retail.

      Crowds at FFLs pose a health risk to the rest of the community. Crowds anywhere pose a health risk. Crowds at “essential businesses” (whatever that means) pose health risks. The courts settled the question regarding the right of governments to prioritize our rights under extreme conditions (“compelling government interest”).

      Courts long ago settled that states have a right to protect the public from social harm (called “public safety”). What is really going on is a dispute as to determining priority during a public safety health threat. The police power of a state is a real thing. It is a real conflict of constitutionally protected individual rights. There is also a limit to those police powers. States will have a devil of a time proving that health risks are ever-present, ever-lasting threats justifying ongoing police power of prioritizing businesses, i.e. declaring some businesses essential, and others not.

      Just as important, but totally ignored, courts have settled the question of whether individual travel is a right, or a privilege. It is a right. Right now, states are prohibiting all but “essential” (whatever that means) travel, yet no one is much concerned about that. When firearms are not available in one location, citizens’ right to travel should make it possible to obtain firearms where acquisition is still possible. With travel restricted, you cannot travel to places where states have not shuttered retail firearm sales. Is “shelter in place” also unconstitutional? Or is it an acceptable lowering in priority in the name of public safety?

  12. avatar Kurt Schreiber says:

    If it really got serious, all you would have to do is present your voter registration showing you are a democrat and the Hunt could proceed.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “If it really got serious, all you would have to do is present your voter registration showing you are a democrat and the Hunt could proceed.”

      Well, crap. That’s no fair. You cracked the secret code.

  13. avatar James Campbell says:

    With many states restricting rights, releasing prisoners, and not arresting for crimes, I find this interesting……
    [[[“Erath law enforcement announced that penalties may be enhanced for crimes committed during COVID-19 emergency. The County issued the following release Friday March 20:

    With Governor Abbott declaring a public disaster applicable to all counties in Texas, the penalties for certain assaultive, theft, and property crimes which are otherwise misdemeanors may now be enhanced to the punishment for felonies pursuant to Texas Penal Code sec. 12.50.

    Further, for certain felonies, the potential consequences are enhanced to the next higher degree felony punishment.

    Erath County law enforcement is working, and when law enforcement is required to devote time and engage in contact with people breaking the law in a time such as this, we will take every opportunity provided for in the law to disrupt, punish, and make examples of those who go to and fro breaking the law.”]]]
    Way to go Texas.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Dafook is an “erath”?

      1. avatar James Campbell says:

        For LarryinTexas……

        Erath County is a county located in the U.S. state of Texas. According to the United States Census bureau its population was 41,969 in 2017. The county seat is Stephenville. The county is named for George Bernard Erath, an early surveyor and a soldier at the Battle of San Jacinto. Wikipedia
        Area: 1,090 mi²
        Population: 41,969 (2017)
        County seat: Stephenville

  14. avatar Michael Twidle says:

    Watch gun sales rocket after this most people are clueless what it takes to get a Legal gun in NJ.

  15. avatar ProudVet says:

    Everyone has been wondering exactly where the shot heard across the country will start? Guess we found out it’ll be New Jersey. The Constitution doesn’t give the government the ability to deny completely he right to own or purchase a fire arm. Seems they forgot the Supreme courts ruling concerning such. Guess we’ll need to keep our weapons handy and our powder dry. This is NOWHERE CLOSE to being over with. Patriots may be called upon to defend our rights and he rushes of the less fortunate. Be Vigilant Oathkeepers hope for the best but be prepared for the worse.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Seems they forgot the Supreme courts ruling concerning such.”

      Nope. Didn’t forget. Ignored it completely. There is no punishment for doing so.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        SCOTUS has no Army.

  16. avatar Part says:

    Living in NJ I’m not surprised. Murphy closed the dealers so why keep NICs open? This scummer won’t be satisfied until he finds a way to negate the Second Amendment completely.

    1. avatar Gft says:

      Time to negate the dictatorship and those at the head.

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    Looks like the Dems have solved two crises at the same time.

    First, the Dems enabled full employment for criminals by disallowing citizens from acquiring the means to protect themselves.

    Second, they solved the TP crisis by substituting copies of the Constitution.

  18. avatar Ralph Sinamon says:

    Uh….the government doesn’t grant RIGHTS and does not have authority to infringe by taking away our RIGHTS, except in extraordinary circumstances! It seems ironically convenient that the government-types that want our guns gone are conveniently using this”emergency” to get around that Amendment that is there to keep THEM IN CHECK! The media is hyping this shit completely out of proportion and Martial Law has been declared in several places by calling it “SHELTER IN PLACE” and ENFORCING it with arrests and such! I am a tad sceptical about some of this! The nation’s elected are falling all over themselves to INFRINGE! If the guns get gone, there will be NOTHING to stop the Communist/NWO/Marxist/Globalist/ conquer the U. S. A. crowd from having their way!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “… and Martial Law has been declared in several places by calling it “SHELTER IN PLACE” and ENFORCING it with arrests and such! ”

      For the record….
      “In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is “under martial law,” we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature.”
      – –

      If one substitutes “police” for “military”, or NG for “military”, the local courts and legislatures would be displaced by either the police, or the NG. What we have is essentially an enforced curfew.

  19. avatar Gft says:


    1. avatar John Hull says:

      As much as I hate liberals, IL Gov Prizker has designated gun shops and FFL holders as essential services. That means my buddy, who owns a shop, stays open to be able to sell guns, ammo, etc. That’s the only damn thing the governor has done I agree with, though.

  20. avatar RustyTheBoyRobot says:

    Best case scenario: we are able to dismantle NICS by pointing to this as proof that NICS is only a means for government overreach to deny rights to citizens.

    I really hope we aren’t faced with rioting on top of all of the other issues we have going on, but if rioting starts, it will only strengthen the case.

  21. avatar TheUnspoken says:

    Usually the “no guns” sign is a “no Beretta 92 sign.”

    Is that a “no HK USP tactical” sign, dang it, it is a great suppressor host! Oh well, we are in desperate times, and desperate times call for strapping on a Mark 45! Or Deagle.

  22. avatar zerofoo says:

    Good thing most of us have transitioned to buying 80% lowers and frames.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Anyone surprised at Joi-zee?!? Me neither…

  24. avatar Warlocc says:

    With states that restrict the 2A to licenses shutting down the systems tied to said licenses, doesn’t that make the laws surrounding the licenses invalid?

    Any lawyers in the house?

    1. avatar Alan says:

      Ask the law makers, who when last one looked, were elected officials, all sworn to “Support, Uphold and Defend The Constitution”, or what just the federal type, many of whom, all to quickly, forget the oath of office they took.

  25. avatar Jim Warren says:

    Common sense dictates that when there is no legal path to firearm ownership, the illegal path is the one to take. That being said, if you don’t already have what you need it’s your own damn fault.

  26. avatar Tommy357 says:

    1. End gun and ammunition sales.
    2. Release criminals from jail to protect them from the virus.
    3. Wait for LE agencies to be incapacitated by the virus.
    4. Grab the popcorn.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Podner, best keep yo dam hands *OFF* ma popcorn!

  27. avatar Alan says:

    One of these days, the people of N.J., those who vote at least might actually realize that elections have consequences.

    I believe it was during the term in office of Governor Christine Whitman, it was a while back, that a high level State Police officer, a Colonel as I recall, during testimony before the state legislature offered the following. “We do not control guns , we control people”. He was neither censured nor was he fired. In my view, he should have been fired, immediately.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Why? For saying what’s true? Gun control is never about control of guns, always about controlling people. It’s about power, leftists do everything they do for power.

  28. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    “The NICS check shutdown effectively eliminates all private transfers of firearms in New Jersey”.

    I kinda doubt that, but I could be wrong.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      They meant all legal transfers.

    2. avatar Fred says:

      Yes, legal transfers only… but that includes private transfers. And it’s been that way for over 40 years. To transfer a handgun to your brother-in-law, you need a Pistol Purchase permit, as I stated, good for 30 days from you local police department. I bought a 22 from my BIL in ’73 and had to get a permit.

      If you transfer a handgun illegally, remember that the State Police has on file the serial number of that gun and your information. So, unless it is an illegal ghost gun, they may come knocking on your door if it gets used in a crime.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I’ll betcha a dollar they don’t have the SNs of ANY of my firearms! Assuming your state gov’t has access to SNs of firearms you obtained from your Dad (or the hardware store) 40 years ago (before computerization!) is assuming an almost magical level of competence within an historically corrupt and commonly imbecilic group. Try “Really? That was the same gun I bought back in ’82? Wow! I sold that sucker to a guy in Arizona on a trip there back in ’95. What a coincidence!” You really need to learn to IGNORE this shit.

  29. avatar Paul Bartomioli says:

    “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

    Rahm Emanuel

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”
      – – Rahm Emanuel

      From “The Hill”, regarding $1,000,000,000,000* economic package introduced Thursday into the Senate by Mitch McConnell:
      “This is a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) told lawmakers, according to a source on the call.”

      *We have reached Weimar Republic territory. Money became so worthless, the bills were printed on only one side. People were using wheelbarrows to dump currency onto their creditors, and liquidate debt.

  30. avatar Jorgy says:

    Nevada Law makes it clear that it is unconstitutional.

    NRS 414.155  Limitations on emergency powers relating to firearms.  Pursuant to Amendment II of the Constitution of the United States and Section 11 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the emergency powers conferred upon the Governor and upon the executive heads or governing bodies of the political subdivisions of this State must not be construed to allow:

    1.  The confiscation of a firearm from a person unless the person is:

    (a) In unlawful possession of the firearm; or

    (b) Unlawfully carrying the firearm; or

    2.  The imposition of additional restrictions as to the lawful possession, transfer, sale, carrying, storage, display or use of:

    (a) Firearms;

    (b) Ammunition; or

    (c) Components of firearms or ammunition.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I hope you realize this is an excellent defense against enforcement of this NJ law while in Nevada, otherwise is meaningless in VA, NY, or particularly NJ.

  31. avatar GS650G says:

    I wonder how many months or years will pass before gun sales are resumed in NJ?

  32. avatar Anon says:

    So, with all of this, nothing from the FBI about all the tapes that Epstein had, nothing about who he was blackmailing. It must have been everybody at the top.

    Who has the tapes now?

    I don’t think the Wuhan virus was set up to deflect from all the information he and his procurer had but you’ve got to admit, the Wuhan virus is very convenient. And the MSM has lost interest since all their owners were involved.

  33. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Another nail in the coffin of Liberty.

  34. avatar Hillarys Server and Smart Phone manager says:

    Never let a crisis go to waste.

  35. avatar Fred says:

    In some ways, NJ gun laws are stricter than California. In order to buy a handgun, you first need:

    1. Firearms owners ID card, with Background check and fingerprint check (Lifetime)
    2. A Pistol Purchase Permit, good for 30 days, for up to 3 handguns. Ordered a gun that takes 31 days to show up? No problem… start all over again.

    Disclaimer: This may be old information, it was a long time ago that I jumped through these hoops.

    The FOID takes about 6 months to get, and then the Pistol Permit is supposed to be issued within 30 days by the local police department, but they often take much longer. It is totally at the whim of the local Police Chief, so LEOs get rubber stamped, some lesser citizens applications get lost. In order to purchase ammunition, you need to present your FOID, which is recorded for each box; this was in effect long before CA started it’s ammo registry. The Pistol permit is defacto registration, with a copy held by the State Police.

  36. avatar Pilot of the Airways says:

    I can’t reply to any specific post ,there are so many and most are good. Why is anyone surprised at anything anti gun from New Jersey democratic politicians? What my comment is about ( not dissing anyone here because I learn from others) is the great lengths some of the folks here go in explaining and defending their position using constitutional and judicial arguments. Yes, I am learning that many here have much more understanding of firearm rights than I. When some posters seem so adamant in their beliefs but are still arguing with others it shows a strong competitive spirit while others like to insert sarcastic remarks that only cloud matters. I enjoy reading this open blog but am constantly amazed at how we write about things (for newbies) here when there are few of them here to enlighten. How can those qualified open up this world to the public, or at least to newbies who might become enthusiasts?

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “I enjoy reading this open blog but am constantly amazed at how we write about things (for newbies) here when there are few of them here to enlighten.”

      How “few” is an undeterminable number. Many just observe (lurk), and rarely contribute (which is fine). But after a few months of daily visits, you will begin to see the new screen name appear, now and again. However….a single person can create multiple screen names, so names alone don’t tell the tale. Soon, you will be able to differentiate between new subscribers, and the multi-name people.

  37. avatar Saran wrappe says:

    So is it not possible to build your own 80% handgun or AR in NJ? Fix your own problem people!

  38. avatar Robert A. Toombs says:

    Don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who only now realize they may need a gun when society falls apart. The handwriting has been on the wall for years now. This shows what the State will do to you.

    “Mene, mene, tekel upharsin”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email