M1152 713 Posted December 16, 2014 has this one been discussed? Proposed New Jersey Gun Law A3931 Title: Revises procedures for securing a permit to carry a handgun. Subject: Law and Public Safety Description: Revises procedures for securing a permit to carry a handgun. Session: 2014-2015 Regular Session Last Action: Introduced, Referred to Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee Last Action Date: December 4, 2014 Link: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillView.asp?BillNumber=A3931 Companion Bill: S1287 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted December 16, 2014 A bill like this seems to get introduced every now and then, but of course, it never goes anywhere in this state that does not acknowledge the Second Amendment. (Note the date of the companion bill in the Senate: 2/24/14, so it's been sitting there for ten months.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ogfarmer 138 Posted December 16, 2014 there is currently three bills like this sitting on mainors desk waiting to be introduced Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Blacksmythe 71 Posted December 16, 2014 There are to many facts in the bill. Why would Mainer a known liar review such a bill. I wish a row of pregnant prostitutes would come forth to reveal him as a deviant and baby daddy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 16, 2014 Can someone please summarize the changes/benefits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted December 16, 2014 Looks straight forward. I wish someone introduce similar one but only for military service members and their families, in the context of official announcements regarding ISIS threats against military members. Call it "Military Service Members Protection Act of 2014". Let the scumbag Dems either not send it to vote or vote against (if they choose to do). Imagine a TV ad that reads "Mainer put our service member lives at risk by not introducing the bill". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted December 17, 2014 Can someone please summarize the changes/benefits? What change could be bad? It can only be better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted December 17, 2014 Can someone please summarize the changes/benefits? Changes: Give the average law-abiding citizen back the right to self-defense with a firearm. Benefits: Makes Bloomberg cry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted December 17, 2014 Can someone please summarize the changes/benefits? Makes permits valid for 5 years. Defines required documentation (certificate of completion of course or class). Removes reference check requirements (since those are required for a FPID and P2P anyway). Says superintendent won't add any requirements to the application which are not specifically authorized in the law. Cleans up the Investigation and approval laguage. Removes record of each handgun permit holder intends to carry. Permit itself shall not contain that information. Ties permit to carry with FPID and P2P requirements (not physically able to handle, adict, etc.). Sets permit fee to $20 (for the total 5 years). Removes approval by Superior Court all together. Adds citizenship, age (21), clean record (5 years prior), substance abuse free, physically capable and safety / training course requirements. Clarifies procedure for appeals from denial of applications. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted December 17, 2014 This is kind of a fairy tale then correct? Really. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted December 17, 2014 This is kind of a fairy tale then correct? Really. A bill like this seems to get introduced every now and then, but of course, it never goes anywhere in this state that does not acknowledge the Second Amendment. (Note the date of the companion bill in the Senate: 2/24/14, so it's been sitting there for ten months.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted December 17, 2014 Adds citizenship, age (21), clean record (5 years prior), substance abuse free How do they show "substance abuse free"? Pass a drug test? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted December 18, 2014 How do they show "substance abuse free"? Pass a drug test? I'm guessing the same way that they do now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wink-_-wink 1 Posted January 4, 2015 Looks straight forward. I wish someone introduce similar one but only for military service members and their families, in the context of official announcements regarding ISIS threats against military members. Call it "Military Service Members Protection Act of 2014". Let the scumbag Dems either not send it to vote or vote against (if they choose to do). Imagine a TV ad that reads "Mainer put our service member lives at risk by not introducing the bill". But then military would be lumped into that same category that LEOs are and it would be seen as special treatment. Then then the 1A lounge would be filled with military bashing posts lol but I have said that same thing to family in the past. They always bring up things like the fort hood shooter and my reply is, well maybe if those troops were ARMED as they are trained to be, they could have stopped that bad guy sooner.... you know that old myth, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted January 4, 2015 But then military would be lumped into that same category that LEOs are and it would be seen as special treatment. Then then the 1A lounge would be filled with military bashing posts lol but I have said that same thing to family in the past. They always bring up things like the fort hood shooter and my reply is, well maybe if those troops were ARMED as they are trained to be, they could have stopped that bad guy sooner.... you know that old myth, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. I am happy for those groups that can CCW in NJ, as long as those groups do not stand against Citizen right to CCW. More the merrier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wink-_-wink 1 Posted January 4, 2015 I am happy for those groups that can CCW in NJ, as long as those groups do not stand against Citizen right to CCW. More the merrier. Im with ya buddy. I am leo and military but i FULLY support the right for CCW for all. I wish NJ wasnt so anal about it. as if the property taxes weren't enough reason to leave. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 4, 2015 But then military would be lumped into that same category that LEOs are and it would be seen as special treatment. Then then the 1A lounge would be filled with military bashing posts lol but I have said that same thing to family in the past. They always bring up things like the fort hood shooter and my reply is, well maybe if those troops were ARMED as they are trained to be, they could have stopped that bad guy sooner.... you know that old myth, good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. New Jersey has no say either way whether or not military personnel can be armed on post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Carcano 14 Posted January 8, 2015 I've given up all hope of legal carry in NJ, maybe the next generation will stand a better chance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wink-_-wink 1 Posted January 12, 2015 New Jersey has no say either way whether or not military personnel can be armed on post. there was/still is rumor of Fort Dix getting a gun/ammo shop on base. There are logistic issues with transporting a firearm on base and then local laws. A lot of military members are residents of other states and wouldn't have the right documents for a P2P. I know NJ has no say on arming troops that really wasnt my point Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
John Boy 6 Posted January 14, 2015 To demonstrate that competence, the applicant would be required to include, as part of his application for the permit, a copy indicating his successful completion of a firearms safety or training course or class offered by a law enforcement agency, an educational institution, the military, or the National Rifle Association. Interesting words, "the military'. With no details, a veteran could provide a copy of his/her DD Form 214 that idenfies all firearms badges that they possess for training on different firearms when in the military service Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeerSlayer 241 Posted January 14, 2015 This is kind of a fairy tale then correct? Really.There was an old lady that lived in a shoe, she had so many children she didn't know what to do. So she decided to murder them one by one, fortunately for the kids she lives in NJ and by the time her permits were approved for her gun, the kids were all grown up and moved out. Now shes just an old cat lady that lives in a shoe... Lol....wait, nevermind that's a nursery rhyme (that actually doesn't rhyme so well) ... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites