Grima Squeakersen

While I 100% agree with the case and decision (2nd A specifies "arms", not only "firearms") my first reaction was to wish that resources would currently be focused on firearms, for a number of reasons. However, a little research tuirned up this column from Bearing Arms, which speculates that the decision may help undermine one of the ridiculous analogies that anti-gun forces have raised in court to continue to justify clearly unconstitutional restrctions on AR, etc. under Bruen. If so, that would be a very good thing. Ninth Circuit panel tosses Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives

Things have seemed very quiet lately on the NJ post-Bruen front. Judge Bumb enjoined much of the NJ Anti-Carry bill, then Platkin (et al) got some of those injunctions temporarily overturned on appeal. A good bit of time has now passed, and nothing has been resolved with any degree of permanence. I have heard little or nothing specific in terms of court dates or strategy recently. Anyone here have any verifiable information about this?

Yes. As if they never happened. Because, officially, that is what expungement does (with a couple of very narrow exceptions that iirc are restricted to judges), it removes convictions from your record. Caveat: IANAL

There is no training, licensing, or registration requirementfor exercising the right articulated in the amendment just before the Second... Why should RTKBA be any more fettered? ***New Jersey, where politicians and bureaucrats have elevated incompetence to an art form***

I just wore my 4.1" Ruger SP101 revolver concealed OWB for 2 weeks straight on a trip to Virginia. I have a Falco holster that rides high on my belt, and I can have the gun comfortably hang in the waist recess just in front of my right hip bone so that an untucked T-short completely obscures it, standing or sitting. This was also surprisingly comfortable, I carried this way an average of 12 hours per day, and didn't notice any discomfort at all until near the end of that time. I was carrying that way for 2 days and my wife didn't know until I told her. This was pleasant surprise; I had no expectation it would work until I actually tried it. I had assumed I would need a button-front collared shirt-tail type shirt, worn untucked, to hide the firearm, but the T-shirt turned out to be sufficient. I do need to avoid particularly short hemmed T-shirts to accomplish this, but that is not much of a problem for me.

You might want to check to see what guns.com would offer. If it's too lowball, don't take it. It doesn't require much to solicit a bid from them. I sold two firearms to them in the past year-and-a-half: a .50 BMG single shot sniper rifle when NJ instituted the registration requirement and fee, and a Bond over-and-under derringer in .45 Colt with a spare barrel in .357mag/.38spc after I decided it wouldn't make a very good concealed carry back-up gun. I did take a bit of a hit on both, but nothing I regarded as outrageoous. If you decide to accept their offer, they make the process very easy to complete.

Building or residence?

I'm in the same boat as you re knees. The first instructor I went to for qualification (Fred Hauber at Full Metal Jacket: if you take a course from him/them and get screwed over somehow, you can't say I didn't warn you) was following HQC2, which requires timed shooting from a kneeling position/under a barrier at 15 yards. To make matters far worse, the official NJ qualification for retired LEOs had an exception for shooters of 5-shot revolvers (I was using a Ruger SP101 in .357), without which reloading makes the sequence pretty much impossible to complete in the alloted time, even for someone with healthy kness. In a subsequent conversation about that segment, Hauber told me that he refused to allow that exception because NJ had informed him that it was no longer offered in the "official" HQC2. In the same phone conversation, he happily informed me that FMJ offered a wide selection of semi-auto handguns for sale, with which I should easily be able to complete that segment No possibility that he/they were using (the purported) NJ requirements for a little profiteering there, eh? A few days later, after I made arrangements to take a different qualification course with Dave Cope at Shooters, Hauber left me a VM telling me that he "discovered" that the exception was still valid, and that I should return to FMJ to complete my qualification. I ignored his VM. I left about $300 on the table at FMJ in so doing, but I wanted (and want) nothing further to do with them.

Generally agree with your points, with one significant caveat. The same range owners/operators who are making a good buck by satisfying whatever egregious training regime NJ comes up with also typically like to portray themselves as uncompromising 2A advocates. Sorry, but there is an inherent conflict there - they cannot be both simultaneously.

Renew by paper, or are they actually getting this into the electronic system? Because if it's on paper, we will again be at the mercy of the Authoritae regarding processing delays.

"...Legislators must really think we are stupid..." Depending on who you include in your collective pronoun "we", I think NJ legislators may have damned good evidence of the validity of that premise. After all, who voted those asswit dimholes into office?

This afternoon I reached out to Shooters, where I qualified, about whether I needed to take any remedial action to satisfy the revised NJ training requirements. Tom Gormley's answer was: "Your qualification taken with Dave Cope is good until your expiration date of your permit." That's good enogh for me.

FWIW, Nappen is holding a seminar on the new requirements at Range 609 in Rio Grande (Cape May county) on Sunday, 8/13. While I am not going to take everything said as gospel, it is free for US LawShield members ($10 otherwise) and I can justify investing 3 hours on a Sunday to hear what Nappen has to say. It is sponsored by a training outfit called "Best Shot" and I have absolutely no doubt that they hope to use it to hard sell additional training that they will claim is needed to meet the new requirements, but that doesn't faze me. I have never had much trouble telling an aggressive sales person to "take a flying f*ck at a rolling donut"... https://texaslawshield.secure.force.com/pmtx/evt__QuickEvent?id=a2z6e00000bJd3G

Yep. I believe the increase was included with the NJ bill (A4769?) that feebly attempted to resurrect NJ's unconstitutional efforts to deny PtC by distorting the requirements of the Bruen decision. If not, it was an administrative rule change that occured at about the same time. A case could absolutely be made that it discriminates against poorer people, but it pales in comparison with the total cost of obtaining and maintaining the NJ PtC itself, which may be on the order of $1000 per year (if not more). See this thread for more info:

OK, that makes sense. Is the length requirement documented anywhere that can easily be found from the search bar? If not, I suggest that it would be a good idea to do so. Alternatively, such a search could produce an error message similar to: "Your search produced too many results to display. Please narrow your search by providing additional criteria" which could be perfectly illustrated by giving your examples.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

I'll take your word that there would be no such nefarious intent, but your contention that a search for "NRA" produces no results because no one has mentioned it is implausible, sorry. In that case there probably is some defect in the forum indexing or the search tool itself. This very thread contains the string "NRA" at least a dozen times. It contains "NAGR" once - in your post. Why would that single mention be returned from a search, but no mentions of "NRA"?

Interesting. Maybe I'll buy a box, borrow my son's Ruger 10/22, and save myself a few bucks and a long car ride. Also prompted another thought - the groundhog burrow is right next to where I keep my mower (which is missing the muffler) - no reason why that couldn't be running at the time.

I did a pretty thorough search, and my township code seems to lack any mention of "firearm", "rifle", or "handgun", and the only references to "discharge" appear to be in the context of sewage, so I don't anticipate an issue there. NTM that the only neighbor likely to observe anything has a farm, and previously had a groundhog problem herself (she elected to use the Great Pyrenees solution).

Yeah, but I think a shot would probably be quicker. Hell, it would probably not be difficult to electrocute the varmint in the trap, but that seems kind of cruel (and probably smelly).

Stumbled on this thread looking for something else. Nevertheless I think a question is warranted. Here we are, more than a year after the assurances of NRA changes for the better in the near future. I see nothing posted since, and I have not heard of any changes for the better in that organization. So, what did change? Anything? Was a new thread started to document NRA developments, rather than posting about them here? I think I know the answer, but I also think it's worth revisiting. I also find it extremely interesting that a forum search for "NRA" yields ZERO results. I had no such issue when searching for "NAGR", which was how I came upon this thread. Is that a search quirk, or is it possible that someone with forum administrative authority is somehow quashing search results on "NRA" to avoid negative comments here about that organization? Showing results for 'NRA'. - New Jersey Gun Forums.pdf

To me, it's even more basic than that. Every critter on this planet (ncluding Man) has a natural right to defend itself from physical attack. Beyond that, all humans, as individual reasoning beings, have a rational right to self-protection. Then we get to the social contract called the U. S. Constitution that puts hard limits on what the Federal and (by 14th A extension) State governments may regulate, with arms possession regulation being explicitly and expressly barred. What the government is doing regarding individual firearms possession is, to me, literally unnatural.

So, in NJ, "ex post facto" applies only if a new law gets a new code section designation?

And what kind of after-the-fact legal force does such a declaration of "intent" wield? I would think none at all. Otherwise the wording would clearly state that the permit-holder is limited to carry only those firearms listed, intent be damned. More than likely that was some legislative aide imbecile's wet-dream attempt to skate the periphery of some mistaken idea of what is permissible under the Bruen historical consistency requirement.

I do not own any .22 cal firearm. I was assuming that an air or gas gun at close range would be more discrete than any pyro gun. Based on some responses, it looks like that assumption may have been erroneous. Nevertheless, I'm trying to not add additional calibers to my "real" firearms. Right now, everything is .357/.38, 9mm, .308, or 12 ga. If there was a reasonable selection of compact semi pistols available in .357/.38, I wouldn't even have added the 9mm...