Grima Squeakersen

"No complacent herd animals care" FIFY

I wasn't here five years ago. But for anyone here who does match your description, continuing to complain about blatant violations of 2nd Amendment rights is entirely legitimate. Apparently you are content with the idea that NJ should be allowed to constantly modify the requirements for your permit so that its validity is in ongoing jeopardy, and to nibble away at the venues and situations where you can actually exercise it until it becmes meaningless. I am not. I hope it will give you great satisfaction to frame it and dispIay it as a wall decoration.

I just sent an email to Tom Gormley of Shooters requesting an update. Old Glock Guy's cite of the date 7/21 has me even more confused. I qualified early in August. My qualification did include use of force, but not holster draw. What (if anything) is magic about 7/21?

Me either. However, imo we need to make damned sure we don't lull ourselves into being so complacent with the current state of affairs that we stop fighting for full compliance with the literal meaning of the 2nd A.

Does that also hold for NJSP for those of us with no local PD? I'd find it very amusing to go to Woodbine to file a criminal complaint against Platkin. I'm no doubt already on a half-dozen quasi-official scheist lists because of the letters I wrote when I was stonewalled on my initial PtC application, so I wouldn't give a flying fornication about landing on a couple more...

And what are our advocacy organizations doing to challenge or counteract this BS? Rhetorical question, no need to respond...

As I noted earlier in this thread, I had proactively contacted Shooters by email in mid-September asking about the new NJ requirements, and received assurance that my previous qualification would remain valid for the duration of my permit. I have received no follow-up message informing me of any change to that answer. I think that more than sufficiently answers any questions about pro-active notification. I'm not specifically picking on Shooters, either. A couple of weeks after I contacted Shooters, I received a similar (but unsolicited) email assurance from Range 129. I did not qualify there, but I'm on their list because I occasionally shoot there. I have received no follow-up from Range 129, either. Frankly, while I understand what a difficult and labor-intensive process this must be for those ranges, I would think that they would very much want to follow-up with corrections to assurances that turn out to be misguided (even if solely becouse of the stupidity and caprociousness of NJ state government) in the interests of limiting their own liability.

Dream on. You live in the aNJus of the US...

I have a recent email from the range where I qualified (Shooters) stipulating on behalf of my instructor, Dave Cope, and themselves, that my qualification complies with the current requirements and will remain vaild through the expiration of my permit in 2024. Since I also have USLS coverage, I will continue to carry without losing any sleep over this issue (or non-issue, if you prefer).

Looks like South Jersey is living up to its rep as the most conservative part of an admittedly very liberal state. Other than the casinos, I see nothing on the list in Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, Ocean, or Salem (the latter sort of surprises me).

Good to know. If I needed complete assurance that only I could access the safe, I would change the combination myself, but the assurances you received are VERY good, and probably the best that can be expected from any business.

They didn't "fix" shit. In this day and age, words are the cheapest commodity on the planet. At such time as there are multiple credible reports that similar situations have occured, and in each case Liberty demanded a subpeona, and refused to provide the code without one, then you would be justified in lauding them for fixing the problem. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Liberty might not even get the opportunity. There appears to be no lack of competition in the gun safe market, and a well-earned gun owner boycott could probably take them under in short order. In that event, I wonder if they would market the codes as assets...

That is true. There is also a second factor, and that is the damage antricipated if a particular aspect of security is compromised. That is distinct from threat level, which as you have used it, is the probabiltiy of compromise. In some domains, the two factors can actually be approximately expressed as a formula. It is similar to actuarial computation in the insurance industry.

Problem is that you have only Zanotti's word that they securely dispose of the combination after shipment. Now maybe you have other reasons to believe that they keep their word, and I hope htat is so, but absent that, I don't know if I would assume that they do as they claim. Integrity in business seems to be fast disappearing, and government over-regulation reduces competition and, along with it, the incentive to take good care of the customer to avoid losing business to a competitor (because that regulation regime thins out those competitors that do not do as the government wishes). EDITED TO ADD: That goes double for Liberty's newfound concern for their customers' rights.

I'm somewhat surprised that Stockton has a GOP mayor. I was through there on several occasions in the early 2000s on business, and it seemed to be going down the liberal sewer then.