Grima Squeakersen

Walmart is a pretty big store. I do a consolidated shopping trip for non-persishible food and supplies once a month, and I've carried there the last few times I've gone.

My understanding is that we can currently carry in any store or other commercial venue that is open to the public and has not posted a sign prohibiting carry. There is another thread here that lists such stores, and to this point, those appear to be few and far between. We can also carry walking around potentially dangerous neighborhoods (which today seems to be all of them). Current carry status sucks, but imo there is little point it making it seem evn worse than it actually is.

The page at that link is dated May 16, before the partial overturning of Bumb's injunction. Way out of date.

The only thing I see to prevent that happening is that judges seem to hate to be over-ruled by a higher court. Sucks to have our rights contingent on some politically-connected a-hole's inflated ego, but good things sometimes happen for bad reasons, and in this case, I'd accept that result.

You could potentially be completely up-front with the valet, informing him that you are locking your EDC concealed weapon in the vehicle as a result of misguided NJ law, and also informing him that you not only hold the business responsible for safekeeping of the firearm, but also him, personally. Ask for his ID, and invite him to summon a manager if there is anything you have demanded that he objects to. Your party might not get to eat in that restaurant as planned, but you would most assuredly be making a point that very much needs to be made.

I'm using the 1.5" Kore nylon reinforced belt, and I'm generally happy with it. It does a great job of supporting my holstered 4.1" 357 SP101 revolver, which my standard 1.5" Carhartt leather belt does not do. I have two minor issues with the Kore. The first is partially self-inflicted. I trimmed to belt to length (intended part of their design) for IWB carry, then decided to stick with OWB, so it's longer than necessary. Being reinforced, it is very stiff, the free end exerts quite a lot of outward force, and that can "tent" a cover garment out quite noticeably, and probably will also result in premature failure of some of my pants belt loops. I am reluctant to trim it again and lose my IWB option, and I'm not even sure that would eliminate the issue. I have used heat on it to try to give the free end more of a circular curve at rest, and that has helped. I think I will need to repeat that process at least one more time before I am satisfied with it. The second issue is that the belt comes with an end retaining loop made of the same HD material as the belt, that is not sewn to the belt, so that the wearer can place it at the most approriate place around his/her circumference. When removing the belt from pants, wearer has to be cognizant of that unattached loop to avoid it falling to the floor and potentially becoming lost. I'd like to see Kore include a spare loop, or at least make the item available to buy separately. The release on my Kore buckle is a lever at the edge of the underside of the buckle, and is moved away from wearer to disengage. Took some getting used to in the dark, but after a few clumsy tries I mastered it.

Regarding lockbox and cable - having a snip-resistant cable seems like a great idea, but pretty much any cable you are going to find on a box can be cut with a bolt cutter that can easily be transported in the culprit's car, so keep that in mind. I recently did some work with heavy cable taking the sag out of my driveway gates, and was surprised at how easily my 30" bolt cutters went through the stuff. IMO, same thing goes for the box - anyone looking specifically to snag secured items from a parked and locked car is more than likely equipped to either break into most boxes on-site, or cut the cable so he or she can compromise the box at leisure at another location. My thought is that the role of the box and cable is to make casual theft more difficult, and that doesn't require a lot of expensive pieces. I own a few examples of two sizes of HF lock boxes with key locks that come with cables that are marginal, but would appear to serve my intended purpose. I have extended those cables with additional nengths of about the same weight so that I can more easily position the box to make surreptitiously securing and removing the gun more convenient. My biggest problem with the HF boxes is that there is no keyed-alike option and no easy way to change the locks, so keeping track of the correct keys can be an issue (the lock/key number is inscribed in very small characters on each item).

I'm reluctant to ascribe this motivation to the entirety of those organizations, as that would implicate rank and file members who are trying very hard to pick the best options for defending their liberties, but I think that, in addition to the NRA, there are quite a number of "movers and shakers" in more local organizations (in NJ and elsewhere) who would gladly trade our full 2A rights for greater personal power and influence. I won't mention any names, but I expect that quite a few of us can recognize the symptoms.

I recently made a trip to property we own in Virginia, and got some hands on experience with moving my handgun into and out of secured storage in my car in the process (I don't have Maryland carry privileges, so I had to store it before crossing the MD line from Delaware on the way down, and before crossing into MD from West Virginia on my return). I also had to store for my pee stop at a Virginia rest stop on I81 going down. Maybe I can get used to the process, but right now it is a royal PIMA. I have been avoiding going through the rigamarole and expense involved in getting MD, but I might just need to break down and do it. Just as an aside, I was informed that Virginia changed their law in 2021 to forbid carry in rest stops (among other sites where VA state employees work) and that there were signs posted prominently there, but at the stop at mile 262 of I81 S (New Market) I couldn't find anything posted at all after a 10 minute search on my way back to the car. EDITED TO ADD: I guess this post could be seen as off-topic, but I think it does relate to the reinstituted NJ restrictions increasing the probability of needing to do this holster to lockbox to holster exercise on a regular basis.

If I had to choose between being part of such a fringe group, or being part of a unified, effective voting bloc that runs roughshod over the liberties of other individuals in the process of exerting its politcal will, I'd grumble (a lot) and take the first option, frustrating though it may be.

It saddens me to think that our advocacy organizations might be bought off with a bogus compromise that falls far short of what the Bruen and Heller decisions promised (and I think that even Bruen was relatively weak sauce compared to a literal reading of the Constitution and 2nd A).

Nah, they just expect to arrest, try, convict, and imprison any of us who guess incorrectly.

No matter what gets shoehorned into it via amendment or by future SCOTUS decisions? Sorry, I cannot make that commitment. The Constitution was the best attempt to date at limiting the inevitable creeping encroachment by a central government on individual liberties, but it isn't a magic charm. Frankly, I would have been happier had they stopped modifying it after the first ten amendments. I wouldn't argue too strongly against anyone who wanted to extend that sweet spot as far as the Fourteenth, but imo that's about when politicians and Federal bureaucrats began understanding how it could be converted into a potential instrument to repress individual liberties, rather than safeguard them.

I know that he is not legally culpable, that seems obvious, even in this thoroughly effed up state. OTOH, he is the one who could be out ~$1000 for the handgun, lockbox, and whatever else might have been inside, and he is the one who could need to go through the paperwork hassle to replace it, in addition to the purchase cost. *THAT* was my point.

About 2 - 3 weeks ago. Don't have the exact date, as I used their web contact form. At the time, I didn't think it rose to the level of importance to merit a phone call (was trying to be solicitous of their time), and I didn't see an email address for questions on their site. which would have been my preference. I expected that there might be a delay, or some disclaimer about what they did and did not want to answer outside of an actual legal response, but I did anticpate *some* kind of reply And yesterday I received a boilerplate mailing from them at the email address I used, so rejection of their reply by my email provider is highly unlikely. I will try a phone call.

"Utter BS" is an understatement. The only defensible basis for reinstating those restrictions is if the judges believe that NJ could ultimately prevail on the test of compliance with the Bruen guidance on congruence with 1787 and 1791 requirements, and there is no way in Hell even those 2 idiot liberals sincerely believes that.

That assumes one is fully complying, and not just locking up a loaded weapon. That requires some risk comparisons on my part. If you were required to enter an establishment in a very bad neighborhood unarmed, allowing the weapon to be clearly seen in the process would IMO not just risk some panicked imbecile running in circles while screaming and shouting "HE HAS A GUN!!!", but some thug breaking Into your car and stealing your weapon while you were gone.

This is the best place I could find to post this. After I obtained my NJ PtC a few months back, I signed up for US Law Shield with the multi-state option (I have permits in 5 other states). I recently saw a claim from a Maryland lawyer claiming it is illegal to carry any firearm through Maryland without a Maryland permit, even if it is stored unloaded and out of driver's reach. I have since debunked that claim. However, my initial reaction to it was to submit an inquiry to US Law Shield asking about the legality, and about whether or not if I happened to be arrested on that basis, my policy would cover my defense. I used the contact form at https://www.uslawshield.com/contact-us/ , identified myself as a member, and supplied my membership number. I never received any reply. Now, it may be that USLS has a policy not explore hypothetical questions such as the one I posed on the legality of carry through Maryland; I could understand that. But I think that my question regarding limitation of coverage was entirely in scope. I find that their complete lack of response, even one to inform me that my questions were inappropriate, is quite worrisome, and borderline unacceptable. I do intend to follow up on this by telephone when I get the opportunity, but this experience is definitely not inspiring confidence on my part in how well USLS would defend my interests is I had an actual legal situation involving a firearm. Anyone else have a positive or negative experience to share regarding contacting US Law Shield as a member?

And if allowing carry becomes an insurance liability issue for retail businesses (as well it may) does that make it acceptable? Double standards pretty thoroughly undermine moral authority. I need to do more research on the holster draw thing. Range 129 is said to allow holster draw if you have passed their holster draw course (proficiency). But that doesn't necessarily conflict with their published requirement for all firearms to be unloaded and in locked cases when entering the establishment. It would be pretty silly to make someone do that when they are going to be drawing and firing after entering, but unfortunately "silly" <> "impossible".

Six months into 2023, that is a singularly unimpressive list :-) I suggest that another step that we could take is to write letters to the management of each of those places, informing them of which one of their competitors is getting our business because of their assinine policy. Won't work with the casino association, but we can at least rub the others' noses in the revenue they are losing.

If a Constitutional amendment to allow California to secede is ever up for a vote, I'm in favor.

I concede your points have a lot of merit. However, I think that now that there are many NJ CCW holders, maybe ranges should consider revising policy to allow carry, while possibly still barring draw. That seems to be Shooters' policy, based on the sign they posted.

Wonder if the issue has anything to do with that "removal of officer" item for Stephen J Pagac, becasue my impression was that it is his number. Maybe he should have made sure that there was a company web page edit that reflected his removal...

My point was that if ranges get a pass for this rule on the basis that CCW holders may not be adequately trained to draw safely, why couldn't a retail store justify barring carry on the very same risk basis? A carrier would need to draw the firearm from concealment to defend him or herself while in the store. I suupose to be a pure analogy, the store would need to state that customers could carry, but never draw, but that is a moot distinction to me.