Grima Squeakersen

The silence is deafening. I'm baffled by the complete lack of response. Is this that stupid a question? Am I so disliked here that I can't get an answer on behalf of a friend who wants to join the ranks of NJ concealed carriers (I certainly don't go out of my way to be ingratiating, but I don't think I have been that offensive)? Or has NJ made this process so damned complicated and confusing that no one will venture an answer for fear of misleading the applicant?

A buddy of mine is trying to get his NJ PtC, and he is having a very difficult time of it. He seems to be getting conflicting instructions from multiple (some of them "official") sources. I began doing some research to try to help him, and I ran into obviously bogus information almost immediately, in the form of application instructions still up on the NJSP site that discuss submitting the (old) PAPER form to local PD or NJSP station. NJSP has had conflicting info on their site from day one; I recall finding quite a bit when I was applying in 2022. I did try to make a pass through the online process using bogus information, so that I could do screen captures that might help him out, but I can only get part of the way through before I get an error (no fingerprint record found) on the SBI number I provided (I have no intention of using my real SBI and giving some hotshot in Callahan's or Platkin's office an opportunity to accuse me of some kind of fraud for submitting a falsified application, small risk though others here might think that to be). Does anyone have a pointer or link to a current, verified accurate, guide to completing the application process that I could share with him? Thanks. GS

Last time I actually tried to read the statute, there was a prohibition on carrying where alcohol is served, and a separate prohibition on carrying while impaired (might have used the word "inebriated", not "impaired"). Are you saying that there is also now a distinct prohibition on taking even one sip of alcohol, (at a BYOB or anywhere else)? Granted, since some judge might rule that the standard for impairment while carrying <> the standard in use for driving, that sip might be an unnecessary risk.

Seems like massive overkill, but it also seems like he should have done a better job of concealment. I'm pretty sure the current NJ law allows for "inadvertant disclosure" or some similar phrase, but your description makes it sound like it was right out in the open. And who knows how whoever called it in characterized it? Did that person call 911 and say something like "Oh my God!!! I'm shopping in Walmart and there is a threatening looking black guy here brandishing a handgun at everyone!!!" or words to that effect? Also, are you certain he was not a cop or someone else entitled to carry openly? If someone in the store called 911, unless the arriving cops knew the guy personally, they would need to ascertain that, and they aren't going to do that without first taking precautions. I carry in Walmart, but I make damned sure my gun will remain completely concealed even when I do something like bend down to grab a big flat of bottled water off the floor.

I don't disagree, but is there a current, binding legal definition of the terms "stopped and detained" that would unambiguously apply in all situations in NJ? Such as "stopped" meaning pulled over while driving, and/or "detained" requiring the LEO to inform you that he has detained you, in exactly those words? Otherwise, I can see a strong probability that some NJ PtC holder will ultimately need to establish those definitions through his defense attorney...

That list has restaurants (unqualified) and bars listed as prohibited: "NO 7(a)(15): Restaurant or bar" I'm pretty sure the prohibition is on places that serve alcohol, and there are quite a few restaurants that do not. I have been carrying in those restaurants and will continue to do so until I receive authoritative guidance that it is prohibited.

There has been a tremendous amount of foot-dragging for issuing individual NJ PtC ever since it was forced down Murphy's and Callahan's throats. In the case of NJSP jurisdictions, it is clearly intentional. For local PD, YMMV...

For chains, you are probably correct. But I'd bet there are a lot of sole proprietors that would dispute your contention.

You are correct. Guess I've been in this damned state for too long, I must be getting brainwashed.

You wrote 'Laws do "infringe" on Constitutional Rights at times for good reason.' (bolding is mine for emphasis). That seemed pretty clear to me when I read it. If taking that at what I thought was face value was a misinterpretation of your position, I'm happy to apologize. I am a Contitutional absolutist in a sense. It was not perfect, but it was (and is) a pretty damned good effort at guaranteeing individual liberty. It was set up with a clear procedure to change it that was deliberately made quite difficult. I regard any law or regulation that contradicts or contravenes it that has not fuliflled that procedure to be completely illegal and invalid. If I comply with any of those illegal and invalid laws or regulations, I do so only because I don't regard open defiance as a practical alternative, at the present time.

Private gun sales are banned here, even with the intercession of an FFL? I have sold a couple, fairly recently, but I used an on-line firearms marketplace that is also an FFL, because they made what I thought was a reasonable offer, and I figured it would save me some red tape.

Another link: ATF preparing to regulate private gun sales with background check, whistleblower group alleges - Just The News and here is a link to the Empower Oversight FOIA request for any official records pertaining to this ban: Draft Ruling Banning Private Sale of Firearms

Are you one otf the "Constitution of Convenience" people? The ones who cite the Constitution when it supports their preferred position, but stand ready to abondon it the first moment it does not? Or perhaps you are just an out-and-out authoritarian who regards power as justification in its own right, and the Constitution nothing but an historical curiosity?

I have an alternative suggestion. Limit their hours to 100 annually and freeze their salaries at the current rate That would make their pay nearly $500/hr, which should be more than sufficient. That would also give them much less time to try to stomp out what few liberties we have left here (although, considering their amply demostrated talent for it, I'm sure they will continue to make some progress in that direction).

That would explain the orgs soliciting additional donations. It does not explain to me with any degree of persuasion why those orgs would completely decline pursue what appears to be (so far as such a thing exists in the legal world) a straight line solution to making the gun control perps personally accountable for their 2A violations. Which was my original question. It is, in fact, no more persuasive to me than the idea that at least some of the movers and shakers in the 2A advocacy world do not want a real solution, as their positions are only assured so long as the problem persists (same as for elected politicians). I also wonder if some of the high priced lawyers utilized by the orgs aren't entirely too collegial with their attorney adversaries.

Are you saying that the attorneys who pursue cases for GOA, SAF, etc. are paid only by contingency, out of judgements? If that is the case, I'd like to see a detailed accounting of where all the donations go. Maybe LaPierre and the NRA aren't as unique in making donations vanish as I would like to think. If that is not the case, my question remains. If that law is as useful a tool to hold the gun grabbers personally responsible for their actions as it would appear to be, why aren't "we" using it?

You are correct about the legality and the process. However, when >90% (my estimate, don't ask me for a list :-) of the breeches of our constitution go unchallenged, that reality demands recognition as the existing state of affairs. Something needs to be done that fetters both the adminstrative state and the idiotic, self-perpetuating legislature, simultaneously.

So, since for all practical purposes this appears to cover all unconstitutional firearms seizures, and since it appears to contain the fantastic incentive of making the ass-clowns involved in the seizure personally liable for damages, the crucial question is why our "advocacy" organizations were not running with this, even long before Bruen?

Bills can and do, all the time. There are a shit-ton of bills that override/violate the Constitution that were passed and are are currently enforced. Judicial review is the end-game solution, but that is very slow, and is becoming more subject to political influence all the time. Fundamental change of some kind is desperately needed, before it is too late.

Think Merrick Garland with a deep tan, in drag.

I'm not completely confident that there is enough rope.

There is a logistics issue with removing and/or punishing politicians who have broken their oaths to uphold the Constitution - you'd need to prosecute nearly all of them. Not that I have any problem with that concept, but I suspect I am in the minority on that.

Federal Judge Rules Against New Jersey and In Favor of Retired Officers In LEOSA Case

There are quite a few professions whose practitioners have strong incentives against eliminating crime...

Idiots, who by any rational standard should be discouraged from operating 2-1/2 ton vehicles at 70 MPH on public roadways, are not prevented from doing so, in spite of the fact that those idiots kill tens of thousands and maim untold additional numbers of people every year. Yet, so far as I am aware, there is no Constitutionally enshrined right to drive.