Leaderboard

Never thought I'd see this in NJ. Convenience store on corner of 571 & S. Stump Tavern in Jackson. Just up the road from CJRPC.

Just be his friend. Most likely, that’s what he needs most. There is nothing magic you can say that will ease his pain. Being his friend is the best you can do. Make time in your life to include him.

If you're looking for something fun and patriotic to do on July 4th, consider coming to Washington Crossing Park (PA side) https://www.washingtoncrossingpark.org/ and learn a little history. We'll be reading the Declaration of Independence (4 times!), have a military encampment, firing cannon, and generally celebrating what makes this nation great. Our schedule is: 12:30 Declaration Reading 1:00 Cannon 1:30 Declaration Reading 2:00 Cannon 2:30 Declaration Reading 2:45 Lecture on Ten Crucial Days in Auditorium (20 minutes) 3:30 Declaration Reading I'll be commanding cannon fire. We'll field our 4 pounder, which makes a lot of noise (5 ounces of 1F powder!). Stop by and introduce yourself! I'll be the tall guy hanging out with the cannon crew and telling you everything you wanted to know about 18th C artillery but were afraid to ask.

Thank you to all the fallen, "This is the day we pay homage to all those who didn't come home”

Although I get your (understandably!) cynical point of view... it's also hard to ignore that there's one very serious difference between "then" and "now". Even if ALL these various cases move glacially, as you say, through the courts - as so many NJ gun cases have done in the past - in the meantime, law-abiding NJ citizens are at least carrying concealed. Frankly?... I never thought I'd see that day. Did you? I think this latest chapter - this decision by Judge Bumb - is yet another "win" no matter how you slice it. And the fact that this judge took so much time and turned out such a lengthy and carefully annotated product... makes me think that she KNEW damn well this case would be immediately appealed, and that it would be closely watched by other courts around the country, and she was making sure to dot the i's and cross the t's on this initial decision... so that it would withstand any future appeal process. I think she's going to be JUST as careful when the full case is heard and decided. And yes, the fact that Alito is over that next level court... if these combined cases ever get to that point, well, from my (albeit limited) understanding, it certainly doesn't hurt us! For years, pro-2A NJ citizens had NOTHING but bad legislation and even worse legal decisions to despair over. But the fact is... the Bruin case DID change things. It gave much-needed "teeth" to the pro-2A side... in the form of clear, compelling guidance on what courts need to do to decide 2A cases... and now we're seeing a series of wins as a direct result. You know, it's ok to crack a smile... perhaps even lift a celebratory glass... at each step we win.

From Kurt Lundy on FB: (((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update))) Personal Transcript From Today's Hearing with Judge Williams _______________________________________ Judge Williams Enters the Courtroom at 1:36 PM ((( CONSOLIDATION ))) Judge Williams thinks its fair to say that both parties want to consolidate but maybe have not agreed on which judge to consolidate with. Angela Cai makes it a point to say that she doesn't want to wait until the courts start making rulings for parties to sway their opinions on which Judge one may favor that leans towards their argument. The Judge brings up the letter David Jensen from the Koons case submitted around noon just before the court hearing. The letter pretty much had to do with the reasonings why he doesn't believe Koons should be consolidated to another Judge. Dan states that he did not see the letter from Jensen however the Judge gave him a quick summary. Dan thinks that at this point the state has stepped in quicksand. Factors in Rule 42 more so favor consolidation into the Koons case rather than Koons into Siegel. Dan honestly believes that it's highly unlikely for Judge Bumb's outcome in her TRO decision to change in the preliminary injunction stage. He believes that the state only wants this in order to pick a favorable judge. Judge Williams says no one has any idea on how she will rule on a firearm's case. Especially seeing how she hasn't ruled on one yet. Dan thinks the state doesn't want to go with Judge Bumb because she has already ruled against them. First filed rules state that the first filed judge makes the decision on how consolidation is handled, however it does not say which way the consolidation goes. Dan makes it a point to say that the dockets were filed within minutes of each other. 4763 and 4764. Associated numbers come in when you open the shell. Koons was technically filed first. Dan thinks that if the state really wanted to save money they would prefer the case to be consolidated into the Koons Lawsuit. Angela Cai thinks that Dan only wants Judge Bumb because it provided a favorable ruling the plaintiffs. Koons succeeded in their order to show clause. The Siegel case is way behind even though Williams had the earlier docket number. Judge Williams was very surprised when she went to set a court date but noticed that Judge Bumb already set her first hearing for a date sooner than she was able to in the system. Williams' says to thinks that anybody would want to Judge shop her to view both cases is a bit disingenuous seeing how she's the newbie. Angela Cai states that decisions in consolidations always goes to the 1st docket number. She believes that the main reason to consolidate is to prevent inconsistencies. The Siegel case is much more vast than Koons. Cai says that they haven't submitted an appeal yet. Mentions that the Preliminary Injunction hearing dates haven't been set. Wanted to wait until today's ruling to submit. ((( TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ))) From what I got Dan is looking for a TRO on just the Sensitive Places and the Preliminary Injunction on most of the other sections in the lawsuit. The Standing, Historical Tradition and Irreparable Harm argument from the state is basically the same. Dan thinks standing in his case is much stronger. The analysis to historical traditions applies to all of the other sensitive places. Very little has to be done based on Judge Bumb's opinion. The Judge Williams questioned Dan saying that if Judge Bumb Has already resolved most of the issues, why does he need a decision from her? Dan Believes that consolidation should be decided before the TRO in Siegel. Judge Williams was surprised by this and ask Cai if she agrees with what Dan said. Cai says the decision is solely up to her on that matter. This saves Judge Williams from having to use extra resources in order to make a ruling. Dan thinks most of the work is already done. He believes that Judge Williams should use Judge Bumb's 60 page opinion to make a ruling, seeing how 98% of the work is technically already completed. He tells Judge Williams that she should map out the analysis already done by Bumb because it can be directly applied to all the other sensitive places. Dan says the state has interpreted Bruen wrong by picking and choosing sections of it without full context. Bruen provides a broad sense of self defense outside the home. The state and legislators went on record saying how they will undermine the Bruen decision. On December 22nd the day the law was signed, The Governor, The Attorney General, Gifford's, Assemblyman and the Speaker all gave their personal and unconstitutional reasons on why they believe citizens shouldn't be able carry firearms. The moment you walk out of your front door you have to lock up your firearm under this law. Which defeats the purpose of the right to carry. The state uses outliers to explain historical tradition but it wasn't long standing. They cited Texas law that only lasted a year. The State is trying to make up artificial context to support their argument . Heller and McDonald both dealt with possession. Bruen is all about outside the home. All three cases dealt with modern handguns. Dan cites Page 21-33 of Bruen/Sensitive Places. We had pretty much the same so called sensitive places back in 1791. There are no new sensitive places in 2023. On Tuesday the brief from the state claims that Bruen invited States to interpret which it didn't. Bruen says there should be a broad sense of carry except in places where core governmental functions happen. Dan says crowds don't count. Everywhere is crowded. New Jersey is the most dense and crowded state in the United States. Reminding the court on standing. The Attorney General is by constitution the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey. The Court could trump the AG to make sure he doesn't do anything inconsistent. The Judge asked how does the 5 sensitive places in the Koons case translate here? Cai doesn't think the Judge should look at those in this Lawsuit. Judge Williams has a suspicion that the state wants her to reverse Judge Bumb's Decision. She asks why she shouldn't think this? Judge has been struggling with the motion to consolidate for the past 2 days. Says she favors Bumb more on this matter. It appears that Kai thinks it would be better to consolidate the other way. Siegel has many more provisions. Judge Williams questions whether the only thing left is a Preliminary Injunction and to consolidate this case into Koons. Cai states that she doesn't think the remaining places correlate to Judge Bumb's opinion. Judge says again that she doesn't think she needs to deal with the temporary restraining order at all. She mentions that the plaintiffs have conceded to the consolidation attempt. Williams' thinks that Bumb's opinion holds a lot of weight. Judge Williams reminisced on the fact that Dan mentioned that this case is 98% done. She then ask him if there's another 14 or so sensitive places that have not been discussed what is the other 2% that hes talking about seeing how Bumb only spoke about 5 places so far. Dan says that the 2% includes actually entering the order on the remaining sensitive places. There's no additional Bruen analysis that needs to be done in order to add those extra places. The state's historical examples on both cases are all the same. Cai claims that she has more evidence that Judge Bumb doesn't have to support not granting a temporary restraining order in the remaining places. Cai cites exhibit.... *5 - a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; *8 - a child care facility, including a day care center; *10 - a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; *22 - a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; The claims and evidence are only currently before Judge Williams and have not been visited by Judge Bumb yet. Section 9 - a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp Section 10 - Parks and Beaches are only talking about merit problems. Cai Brought up the fact that places like Central Park and (I believe she referred to Fairmont park) banned firearms and that many other parks followed their restrictions soon after. She also brought up the following Sections..... *11 - youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; *18 - a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; *23 - a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; Cai Went on to say that these sections simply didn't exist in the founding time period. Says places like airports didn't exist either. She also cited Texas law where public shows would restrict firearms and it could also tie into movie sets. Judge Williams then cuts Cai off and says that all she thinks she's hearing is to revisit Bumb's opinion. Williams honestly believes that one judge should be deciding these things. It serves the best interests of everyone. Bumb's opinion on Bruen is extensive and exhaustive. Visually viewing the stress on Judge William's face she says that she's struggling with how to address what's before her today. She goes on to say that Bumb has the perfect roadmap to reach a resolution. Cai brings up the Supreme Courts Decision to uphold the 2nd Circuit's Stay on NY's carry law and that she saw how they respected the judicial process. Judge Williams saw what they said and wasn't tricked by the ruling. Judge Williams' then goes on to say that The Supreme Court has spoken. Sometimes we wish they were less ambiguous however this isn’t the case this time, is it. Mic Drop As Cai proceeds to go deeper into her argument the judge has more and more concerns about not consolidating. Cai thinks the Judge should reach a decision on the remaining places. Williams goes on to say that both parties brief and supplemental briefs were written and submitted in superb fashion. Dan says that Justice Alito's opinion yesterday shows that he isn't happy with what's going on. He further presses that Koons reasoning carries over to the remaining sensitive places. Dan mentions that the state never Brought up churches and their unique situation. One of the plaintiffs houses of worship is attached to a school. So it effectively eliminates their ability to carry under this law. He then cites the Multi Use Purpose/Law is too overbroad. Judge Williams then goes on to question if this portion of the law is worthy of TRO?(meaning should it be pushed into the PI stage) Dan responds by saying that this is a major 2nd amendment problem. Places like strip malls have multiple stores that are attached to each other in a development. If one of the stores is an educational institution then the entire building would be considered a sensitive place including the parking lot. Which poses a major risk to plaintiffs and their right to carry. Cai's response to this is to refer back to standing. Judge Williams then starts to think for a moment, then proceeds to call for a 15 minute recess. When she returns she states that when it comes to the 5 sections of the law that a TRO was placed on, She finds no reason to have a different result than what Judge Bumb granted. She then goes on to say that consolidation of Siegel into Koons is the appropriate course of action. It would save many of the court's resources and also mentions that the court has discretion due to the unique situation, based upon the close timing of both cases being filled. There's a couple different ways to look at it but technically the Koons case was filed first. Preliminary Injunction briefing schedule is set to be made soon. Judge Williams also said that her opinion and orders will be released either tonight or tomorrow. More than likely tomorrow.

Siegal has been Consolidated into the Koons Case. Notes coming Soon

I know th is wont change the mind of those who are deeply rooted in their beliefs but I will say my peace and maybe itll make sense to those who have never considered this point of view. I do not agree and will not support mandated training. Follow me on this logic. 2A at its heart is for defense from tyranny (and thus self preservation aka self defense) Tyranny from federal, state, local, it doesnt matter. If it is local tyranny you appeal up the chain of command, and ultimately if even the highest levels of government is still oppressive, 2A is a doomsday prevision. Now to claim that your right to own a gun is contingent on you take training... and this training is mandated by the very government that the 2A was written to safeguard against, is incompatible with the heart of 2A. Now I love training, i recommend and encourage training. But telling me that I cannot own a gun, until I satisfy the whims of the government, which the 2A was put in place to put in check, created a system where they can make the training so cumbersome that very little people can/will get approved. Does ANY of this sound even a tad familiar? Yet there are people who will still push mandatory training, like NJ will never take advantage of that...

I've been sworn to secrecy in terms of releasing the particulars UNTIL the suit is filed--but I can say this: Attorney David Jensen (Jay Factor's and Mark Cheeseman's lawyer of record) already has a suit waiting to be filed before the ink is dry at the Bill signing "ceremony" Gov. Snaggletooth is sure to hold...and CNJFO along with others are the Plaintiffs. Can't be any more "at the forefront" than THAT! Rosey

3 basic reasons why it’s dumb: The first rule of getting into a gunfight while seated in your car is don’t. Cars are bullet magnets and offer almost no protective cover from incoming rounds. So, if you’re in a car and you need to pull your gun, hit the gas and drive away instead. If you can’t drive away, your best course of action is to bail out of the car and make space between you and your aggressor/bad guy. I bet you’ll wish the gun was already on your person then. Think about this - If you are carjacked, would you rather have the gun on you as you are forced out of the car? Or still in the holster between your legs that you can’t get to without telegraphing your intent to fight? Or is it better to leave it in the car as a gift to the bad guy? Fighting while trapped in a car is the last resort. If that’s the case and you have to fight from inside your car, carrying off body is dumb because: You spend hours and hours of training time and ammo drawing from your body. Do you really think you are going to remember, under the stress of a physical altercation where you need your gun, that today, for the 15 minutes you are in your car, that you put the gun over here? In this spot? Not on your body where you are used to it? News flash - you aren’t. Ultimately, no one rises to the occasion. Everyone falls back on their highest level of training. In other words - under stress - your 20 reps from the off-body car rig will not override your 10000 reps of drawing from the holster on your belt. Keep the gun on your body and attend a training class that will teach you the proper way to fight from a seated position. It’s not hard to do once someone shows you the way. ETA: I thought of a third reason - the first time you walk into a Stop & Rob and realize your holster is empty because the gun is in the car - because you forgot to transfer it over to your hip when you got out of the car to get a Twinkie and a coffee - you’ll never off-body carry again. So - to sum up: 1) If you choose to get in a gunfight while seated in your car - That’s dumb. 2) If you have to bail out of the car and you leave your gun behind - That’s dumb. 3) If you react to a deadly threat and unconsciously reach for your gun at your hip/appendix (where you normally carry it) and you find an empty holster - (either due to forgetting you moved it to a new location or forgetting it altogether in the car) - That’s dumb.

Well, hold onto your hats. I received a call from the PO at my local station this AM to come and pick up my permit. They backdated it to be under 90 days, LOL. One issue is they didn’t check any box on the restrictions list. Not sure if that’s good or bad, but the court order that came with it is a simple one-page document signed by the judge that says ‘blah blah is hereby issued a permit to carry a pistol’. Thanks for all of the support to get me here!

9/29 deptford township Gloucester county. Permit in hand! Restricted to guns qualified with. Can amend order anytime by mailing in new quals.

I just got the call...my permit is at Washington Station. I'll pick it up tomorrow when I'm working from home. I'm in the office today.

Murphy:

ANJRPC has given us this handy dandy list. Updated with info from 6/20/23 ANJRPC List disappeared - updated with GFH list (not as easy to read) As of 1/9/2023 - here is the official list of places that you may carry by Code Section (PL 2022 Ch 131) 7(a)(12) - public libraries and museums 7(a)(15) - bars, restaurants and places that serve alcohol 7(a)(17) - entertainment facilities, including but not limited to theaters, stadiums, museums, racetracks anywhere where concerts are performed 7(a)(24) - private property 7(b)(1) - while operating a motor vehicle All other elements remain in effect and this list only remains enjoined until an appellate court grants a stay (if they do). As of 1/30/2023 - the TRO has been expanded to cover: 7(a)(10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; NOTE - PLAYGROUNDS are still off-limits N.J.A.C. 7:2–2.17(b) [preexisting law]: State Park Service property. 7(a)(18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; The Court also acknowledged the State’s concession that “school, college, university, or other educational institution” is to be read narrowly to apply to traditional schools such as are regulated by the State. Thus, the prohibition on carrying in schools does not apply to, for example, motorcycle classes, firearms training, Sunday school within a church, karate classes, and music lessons. Further, the Court acknowledged the State’s concession that notwithstanding the very broad language used in the statute (“any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area”) the scope of prohibition on multiuse property (strip malls, office buildings, churches with schools, etc.) is limited only to the actual prohibited use itself and not other uses and also does not include shared features such as shared parking lots, hallways, elevators, etc. Allowed as of 5/16/2023 due to Preliminary Injunction: 7(a)(6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event; 7(a)(9) Zoo 7(a)(20) an airport or public transportation hub (Only curbside drop off/pickup and air travel pursuant to federal law - eg unloaded, locked container for travel) 7(a)(21) a health care facility (Medical office and ambulatory care facility only) 7(a)(23) a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; 7(a)(24) - private property (property that is open to the public - businesses, etc. Including curtilage of private property - driveways, front walks, lawns, etc.; You are also allowed on private property if invited) Also removed as of 5/16/23: 4(a) and (b): Liability insurance requirement. Portion of N.J.S. 2C:58-4(c) authorizing the police to interview the persons endorsing the carry permit application. Further Clarification as of 5/16/23: Maximum of 2 handguns are allowed on you for carry purposes. If you are in a vehicle, any additional firearms fall under transportation laws. You cannot carry in the following locations: 7(a)(1) a place owned, leased, or under the control of State, county or municipal government used for the purpose of government administration, including but not limited to police stations; 7(a)(2) a courthouse, courtroom, or any other premises used to conduct judicial or court administrative proceedings or functions; 7(a)(3) a State, county, or municipal correctional or juvenile justice facility, jail and any other place maintained by or for a governmental entity for the detention of criminal suspects or offenders; 7(a)(4) a State-contracted half-way house; 7(a)(5) a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; 7(a)(7) a school, college, university or other educational institution, and on any school bus; 7(a)(8) a child care facility, including a day care center; 7(a)(9) a nursery school, pre-school, or summer camp; 7(a)(10) Playgrounds 7(a)(11) youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; 7(a)(13) a shelter for the homeless, emergency shelter for the homeless, basic center shelter program, shelter for homeless or runaway youth, children’s shelter, child care shelter, shelter for victims of domestic violence, or any shelter licensed by or under the control of the Juvenile Justice Commission or the Department of Children and Families; 7(a)(14) a community residence for persons with developmental disabilities, head injuries, or terminal illnesses, or any other residential setting licensed by the Department of Human Services or Department of Health; 7(a)(16) a Class 5 Cannabis retailer or medical cannabis dispensary, including any consumption areas licensed or permitted by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission established pursuant to section 31 of P.L.2019, c.153 (C.24:6I-24); 7(a)(19) a plant or operation that produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one form of energy to another; 7(a)(21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility 7(a)(22) a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; 7(a)(25) any other place in which the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by statute or rule or regulation promulgated by a federal or State agency. 3rd Circuit Stay effective 6/20/23 A mid-level federal appeals court has partially granted and partially denied New Jersey’s motion to temporarily reinstate the carry-killer law. As a result, the lower court’s injunction blocking most of the carry-killer law will be partially suspended during the state’s appeal. This means that for the duration of the appeal there are “sensitive places” where the carry-killer law prohibits carry and other places where the carry-killer law remains blocked by the court. The decision means that for the duration of the appeal gun owners CANNOT lawfully continue to carry in the following locations: Within 100 feet of a public gathering, demonstration, or event requiring a government permit; Zoo; Park, beach, recreational facility or area owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit designated as a gun-free zone; Publicly owned or leased library or museum; Bar or restaurant where alcohol is served and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises; Entertainment facility; Casino and related facilities; Health care facility. You can continue to carry in the following locations: Vehicles Private property Public film locations Duty to inform is in effect as of 7/1/23 Training Requirements - Revised as of 9/17/23 https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJRevisesCarryTrainingRequirements Excerpt as follows:

It was a good day, about 15 show up, and we snagged a new member. We had three traps going, with two set up throwing doubles, that was a hoot. Several birds and one deer decided to play no-man's-land WW I style, I'm actually surprised two of the suicidal birds didn't get shot as they crossed paths with targets. The biggest news of the day, Peel broke clays while they were still in the air, what's more, she did it three times in a row. Just goes to show that the right gun can improve your game.

Memorial day is a day of reflection and remembrance of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. I am reminded of the words of General George S. Patton who said: It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.

"Transcription" (Really more notes) from an attendee to the TRO hearing:

Wow…. Both of those guns are inherently capable of scoring 100% on a HQC - Meaning they are mechanically accurate enough to get scoring hits at 25yards. I have qualed with a JFrame and a Ruger LCP with no issues. Instead of wishing for an easier test, practice harder to be a better shot. It’s a win-win.

NJ: Our law is rooted in history and tradition. We wouldn't have passed this law without it. Judge: Show me NJ: Fuck...

This is such an optimistic time for us gun owners. Its not over yet but for once we have the momentum and the law on our side. I have to say, I've been seeing some infighting lately and it is doing absolutely nothing but stroking internet egos. This is far from over, but there is great work being done on our behalf. No one ever thought carry would come to NJ or NY, and you know what, if everyone had that defeatist mentality, then no one would have taken the torch to bring the fight to court. All this naysaying does nothing but demoralize and does not help the cause. So while its your freedom of speech to always point out the worst case scenario, you are doing nothing to support and motivate. Being aware of negative outcomes is one thing, but constantly being told we will fail is something else. If that is you, I'm sure the community would rather you sit in a corner and let better men take up the fight to restore rights that you insisted wouldn't happen but will get to enjoy nonetheless if successful. Let's keep it up. Donate when you can. Take a friend to the range.

I don't have to train to exercise my first Amendment rights, why should I have to train to exercise for the second? Training is great! I just don't agree with it being mandated!

Since you don’t know me, I won’t shit all over you for your stupid statement. I’m from Texas originally. I married a Jersey girl and lived in NJ for 20-ish years. We moved back because I own a ranch here, and my family is here, and I had done my 20 in NJ. It’s returning home for me, but I still have many friends in NJ, many of them personal friends I have met on this board. I won’t give up fighting for them. Or you. Even though I no longer live in NJ, I STILL continue to fight for YOUR rights, by calling, and emailing your reps, and by donating money to the NJ organizations that fight for you. I see it as ALL of our fight. Because what happens in your state can easily happen in mine.

Permit in-hand! I had my hearing this morning in Gloucester County. I received an email a couple weeks ago from the judge’s secretary telling me to appear. There were about a hundred people there for the morning session. There is another in the afternoon. They called in groups, township by township… biggest groups first. Washington Twp was the biggest with 31 people. I’m from Woolwich Twp, and was the third group. The judge said he already reviewed the applications, background checks and qualifications so this would go pretty quickly. He also said that if anyone wanted to add an additional gun later, they should send an original qualification to his secretary and he will issue an amended court order. There is no need to come back. He called each person up individually, in no obvious order. He swore us in and asked three questions: Are you (name)? When you filled out the application, we’re you truthful? Have any of the answers changed since then? I answered yes, yes, no. He asked the prosecutor if there was any objection, to which she answered no every time. He then said he’s approving the application for the guns I qualified with. He read out the make, model, caliber and serial number of each. The secretary came over to get me to sign the permit, and took it back to make a copy. Then I sat back down to wait. After a bunch of people went, the judge took a break. The secretary called off names and handed out permits and the court orders limiting us to the listed guns. The permit has See Court Order marked. I was there 9-11:30. It was 98 days. I submitted my application 8/10. No references were ever contacted. Permit number is in the mid 300’s.

Your username is kinda ironic, because this is why I hate NJ. Is there any particular reason the rules don't apply to you? Do you have special driving skills? Is there something about your vehicle that would make it clear to someone waiting to pull out into traffic or change lanes that you're going to arrive much sooner than expected? My guess is probably not. Having people in a position where the rules don't apply to them is bad enough, but to then crow about it as if it is funny instead of disgustingly corrupt is demonstrative of why this is such a shitty State.

Well, the day has finally arrived. Picked up my PTC today from Scotch Plains PD in Union County. App was submitted on 8/15 so little over 2 months.

i've said it before and i'll say it again. the only way to stop madness like this is to pass an amendment that hold lawmakers personally liable for legal fees resulting from laws they sponsor which are ruled unconstitutional. as it stands now, these ppl across the nation (but especially in ny ca and nj) pass any outlandish law they want knowing full well it won't pass scrutiny. they don't care though, because there are no repercussions for them. change that

He was a prohibited person. It does help our cause... actually.

Just picked it up. Never thought this day would happen in NJ.

Goodness! With so many dads and expectant dads in this community, we really can't let this holiday slide by, can we? My dear dad has been gone a few years now, but there's not a day that passes that I don't think of him. He was the best - intelligent, multifaceted (a true Renaissance Man), strong, a steady provider, a devoted husband & dad, reliable as the day is long - IMO, he modeled what a man should be every day of his life. Fathers are so very important! Not only do those of us who had good dads present in our lives understand this intuitively and through our life experience, but even the science backs it up! In households without a dad present, boys are more likely to drop out of school, join a gang, get arrested... girls, meanwhile, are more likely to (also) drop out of school, be sexually abused, end up as pregnant unmarried teens, etc. A good dad stands as a quiet sentinel in a family - keeping trouble at bay. In a day and age where we hear ad hominem attacks on "toxic masculinity", and men, frankly, get trashed right and left on social media... I think it's appropriate that we acknowledge how much good men actually bring to the table. Father's Day is a great day to do that. So... HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!! If your dad is still with us and tried his best to be a good dad, I hope you either spent some time with him today or gave him a call (and the day is young, it's not too late). And if your dad is no longer with us, then send him your good thoughts in Heaven. I know he'll hear you.

I wouldn’t saddle the military or most cops with them, just the protection details for every politician who supports smart guns.

It sounds like they backed away because they realize they overplayed their hand and ticked the judge off (as laid out in the video above). Good. I'm delighted they're fumbling this. They're going against the U.S. Constitution, they have no justifiable case only empty politics, savvy Judge Bumb knows it... and hopefully, they'll get their asses handed to them with more delicious snarky quotes we can all enjoy. Winning. Gosh, it feels quite nice for a change, doesn't it?

Hmmm...just curious...where are you reading how difficult it is to shoot/pass the qualification course. Gun For Hire lists their course-of-fire using the standard FBI Q target. I am a cock-eyed old man who hasn't shot pistols in several years. I pulled a few of my guns out of the safe, cleaned them and successfully shot that course-of-fire for practice at my home range with each of those guns. All iron sights and included a compact (M&P 9C) and a sub-compact (SIG P290RS). With the SIG I had 1 miss at 25 yards. All the rest were 100%. In my judgement, if you can't pass the GFH qualification course you have no business carrying a gun!

I think a lot of you are looking at this very black and white and not the million shades of gray that are present when intoxication is brought into it. I also think many of you I’ve never been sued or involved in a trial. ANY crack in the armor of legality you may have will be exploited against you both in criminal AND CIVIL court (where the burden of proof is much lower than criminal). If have been paying attention lately you may have noticed - the punishment for protecting yourself has often been the process itself. Being intoxicated - even the hint of possible intoxication, in any shape or form - will never ever be a benefit to your case. EVER. Remember - the legal use of deadly force is entirely based on your perception of events at the time the event occurs. The fact that you observed actions that put you or another in danger of death or serious bodily injury is the key, coupled with your ability, or inability, to retreat. That decision is then weighed against what a similar person, with similar training and experience, would perceive and what their reaction would be. Alcohol and THC are proven to distort judgement, reaction time, mood, memory, demeanor, and the perception of time. How do you maintain that your perception of events was accurate if the accuser can maintain you may have had a level of intoxication present - no matter how small? Your mindset before and during a deadly force interaction also play a significant factor. Poor judgement exercised prior to being involved in a use of force can turn a self defense finding into a manslaughter charge or even murder - if your actions are deemed reckless, malicious, or done with prior planning and forethought. Carrying a weapon while high or drunk, or if you are planning to get high or drunk later, is easily proven to be purposeful behavior that can change what was a careless act into a reckless one (reckless requires a purposeful or knowing component) providing aggravating factors for the courts to charge (and sentence) far more harshly. Keep in mind - I’m not saying someone should be excluded of their 2A rights because they drink or use THC. I’m saying you are not doing anyone - not yourself, your family, fellow 2A advocates and gun owners, or society as a whole - any favors if you carry while drinking or with THC in your system - whether intoxicated/under the influence or not. These of course are my personal opinions and how I make decisions for me. You all do you - and that’s what makes America great.

You are new here, maybe a new gun owner too, so you may not know. There is no point trying to apply logic to anti-gun laws. None was used in writing them. If you try, you will only give yourself a headache and still have crappy gun laws.

I am not a lawyer, but I think that is a legal ‘bitch slap’ to the State of NJ.

1979 Un-fired.

https://www.nj.gov/njsp/firearms/firearms-faqs.shtml Okay.... I'm calling SHILL The op cut and pasted the question directly from the NJ.gov website. This isn't a question, it's a QUIZ from a state shill.