Rediculous Application Question: STS033

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#1
So, I have been going through the process of obtaining my NJ Firearms Purchaser Permit, and on one of the several applications there is this question (among many normal ones) that literally made my jaw drop open. It wasn't so much the question that got me, as it was thinking about the scenarios in which a person would actually answer, "yes" to it.

From the NJ-S.T.S. 033 (Rev. 09/09) form:


WTF kind of question is that? What organization were you with and why were you in it? Who would be dumb enough to even try to polish that turd?

"I was a member of the local radical-Jihadist movement, but only because their jackets were cool and Thursdays were karaoke night!"
:lol:

Do you think this gets taken seriously? This question just seems like a complete legal joke to me. This is why they run mandatory background checks.

What are your thoughts on this? Are they trying to pull a rope-a-dope, in which they can deny the person a firearm if the background check does not match their answer to that question?

PS - Is this an acceptable answer?:
:lol:
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#2
I think it's just being thorough. Obviously no one will answer it seriously especially if they are part of said reason to ask said question but it's there for the sake of being thorough.
 

Jakey-D

Registered Member
#3
This is gonna sound crazy, but it's probably to prevent court cases. Say someone got shot, they might consider suing the people who gave the attacker permission to carry a weapon as they didn't check the said attacker was not part of a violent sect.
 

Merc

Certified Shitlord
V.I.P.
#4
This is gonna sound crazy, but it's probably to prevent court cases. Say someone got shot, they might consider suing the people who gave the attacker permission to carry a weapon as they didn't check the said attacker was not part of a violent sect.
That's exactly what it is. I was trying to get that out but I'm a tad under the weather but I'm glad to see someone else picked up the slack. :lol:
 

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#5
This is gonna sound crazy, but it's probably to prevent court cases. Say someone got shot, they might consider suing the people who gave the attacker permission to carry a weapon as they didn't check the said attacker was not part of a violent sect.
See, that is what gets me though. I understand the need to have plausible deniability, "hey, we did ask the guy," but isn't the background check about 6,000 times more effective and respected in court?

For instance, a recent sex offender on the run just managed to get a job as a census taker--he skipped through the application under a fake alias by lying on the sheet, but the background check turned up his criminal past. They couldn't find him until about 5 days later, but the point is that the history check is mandatory and what eventually caught him.
 

Jakey-D

Registered Member
#6
See, that is what gets me though. I understand the need to have plausible deniability, "hey, we did ask the guy," but isn't the background check about 6,000 times more effective and respected in court?

For instance, a recent sex offender on the run just managed to get a job as a census taker--he skipped through the application under a fake alias by lying on the sheet, but the background check turned up his criminal past. They couldn't find him until about 5 days later, but the point is that the history check is mandatory and what eventually caught him.
Yeah but what if the attacker was part of some really secret society that a background check missed. The criminal could also claim that the blame was partly on the gun people. The attacker's defense could be like, "Well you could just have asked..."
 

Stegosaurus

Registered Member
#7
Yeah but what if the attacker was part of some really secret society that a background check missed. The criminal could also claim that the blame was partly on the gun people. The attacker's defense could be like, "Well you could just have asked..."
Point well taken--I suppose it is just being thorough. It still seems silly, lawl. That would be one ballsy MFing attacker, though. :lol:
 

idisrsly

I'm serious
V.I.P.
#9
So if the court case comes and the family of the victims are told "we did ask him, but he lied", will they feel more comforted. "Ah well, what could have been done? The mean homicidal maniac lied on his application, no one could have foreseen this?"

Seriously? I get the being thorough and covering their own asses part, but come on?