Jump to content

galapoola

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    273

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by galapoola

  3. Posted

    4 hours ago, NorthernYankee said:

    I agree it's just a directive but some have taken it to mean signed by judge, but I don't agree. Just posting to show what people are referring to.

     

    Remember that "ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2022-07" is merely a directive as well yet it has flipped the switch on justifiable need. There are people receiving permits although not as many or as quickly as any of us would like. So directives are followed, the judges just need to be reminded.

  4. Posted

    11 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    What type of maintenance do you guys do besides cleaning? 

    Any replacement of springs? How many rounds should go through a gun until it's considered not as reliable.  

    I have over 5000 through my cz shadow and I've had zero issues but I like to train with the gun I will be hopefully carrying.

    Once we start carrying the new maintenance item will be cleaning the holster crud regularly. Most guns we’ve been shooting, clean and back in the safe. Now they’ll be spending time holstered. 

  5. Posted

    11 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    What type of maintenance do you guys do besides cleaning? 

    Any replacement of springs? How many rounds should go through a gun until it's considered not as reliable.  

    I have over 5000 through my cz shadow and I've had zero issues but I like to train with the gun I will be hopefully carrying.

    Once we start carrying the new maintenance item will be cleaning the holster crud regularly. Most guns we’ve been shooting, clean and back in the safe. Now they’ll be spending time holstered. 

  6. Posted

    10 minutes ago, 124gr9mm said:

    For now I'll have to accept that there are limitations to where/when/how I'll be able to carry.  Those limitations will be constantly challenged in court (and many likely overturned) but until then I'll follow the law.

    Wringing my hands and complaining about where I CAN'T carry at this point seems absurd to me.

    All well and good, however, this ragtag community of gun owners needs to gain as much ground as fast as possible. I too will take what I can but I’m not satisfied with everything that Bruen has given us in theory and that NJ is doing in practice. If we sit back with a piece of the win, then NJ will oblige us and squeeze our rights down. Ocean and Monmouth county courts need to be made an example of in the most extreme manner possible. They need to humiliated and slapped down so other judges will not follow. Thanks 

    • Like 2
    • Agree 1

  9. Posted

    20 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

    If you are in possession of a handgun, and your permit expressly excludes that situation, I would imagine you would be charged with illegal possession of a firearm.

    Logically I agree. If you are carrying in your car with the restrictions it would be similar to carrying anywhere without a permit so it's a felony. You loose everything. But . . .

    How would the officer know? Will anyone tell him/her or volunteer the 4 page document?

  10. Posted

    49 minutes ago, leo-польд said:

    So, as I read 70+ pages here carefully :) I see 2-3 people got their permits only. Most people are still waiting for judge's approvals in many different counties. Do you think they are boycotting this new job for them in NJ or waiting for governor/da to give them some new steps to prohibit this or what? Longer they are not approving - more applications they will collect, more applications they collect - longer we will wait and our qualification will expire ...:( Any response from any of them on why it is not moving anyhow?

    Also for mods, would be good to have new thread "I got ccw permit" with just name, dates and county.

    I'm at day 50 myself. 9/16 will be 60 days. Have we come to a consensus on what the 60+ day applicants should be doing? Wonder if we should be emailing the ANJRPC strike force so they have some ammo for a next big move. I listened to one podcast with Dan Schmutter as the guest and he said he and Scott Bach where in communications with the NJ AG offices in the lead up to the SCOTUS June opinion. That probably helped the acting AG with the quick directive. Now that there should be a good number of us nearing the statutory 60 days, perhaps we should all be emailing the Strikeforce.

    • Informative 1

  11. Posted

    3 hours ago, samiam said:

    There is a lot of truth in what you write. However, if every PtC for Ocean and Monmouth Counties subsequent to a certain known date is accompanied by a court order that the permit holder is required to carry (and follow), no database would be needed. That fact and the issue date of the permit would be all the cop needed to know. to churn up a significant shit storm for a permitee subject to such an order who failed to carry it, and/or failed to observe its restrictions. 

    I don’t know . . .  Do we think the rank and file front line police are in the know about dates like we all are? Probably not

  12. Posted

    46 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

    Here is  Bit of GOOD News for a change, I just got this response from the ANJRPC-Strikeforce, a response to my e-mail concerning the "no carry while driving" restriction, I am sure they don't mind me sharing...Great to hear this, there is no way that restriction will stand even if we have to sue.

    "We’re already on this.

    Thank you for your report.

    Dan"

    I'm guessing that's Dan Schmutter? Good, one of the lawyers and not a paralegal

  13. Posted

    “Worth noting that he says his and his wife's permit are check "no restrictions", with no mention of the order on the permit, however the order instructs them to carry permit and the order.”

    So in the unlikely event this couple is questioned by a LEO, and they self identify and/or the LEO notices they are driving with a loaded gun, what will the officer see when they present the permit? It will look just like theirs, unrestricted. That’s pretty much it.
    The PCH is a joke, a non laminated hand made permit too big for your wallet with a picture pasted on. Do we honestly think the state has it together enough to even have an accessible data base for patrolman? All your paperwork is in a file cabinet in a folder with your name on it. The state is not going to spend $100,000’s to stand up and maintain a data base. That takes time, hardware, software and personnel who earn salaries.

  14. Posted

    41 minutes ago, Combat Auto said:

    Some posted that Nappin is working this and it will be resolved in the short term. Maybe that is why the permits are being held up right now. This would be nice, but I'd feel better if we heard this from Nappen, maybe in his seminar Sunday.

    You would think that on its face it’s un-constitutional and a federal district judge could fast track a motion. Perhaps the most senior superior judge, one who oversees all the counties could put a stop to this practice. This is judicial misconduct and overreach. Finally, the acting attorney general who issued the directive could weigh in. The executive and judicial branches do not answer to one another however it was that directive from the executive branch that compelled the courts to no longer consider a letter of need. SCOTUS was very clear about sensitive place shenanigans, going so far as to name NYC as an example of what not to do. 
    When my permit is issued, if I have the motor vehicle restriction, I’m going to speak with the chief of police in my town and see if he will instruct his department to not enforce that restriction. Most of my travel is within town so this could extend some relief while things get sorted out. We see sheriffs all across the nation standing up to tyranny, maybe it’s time to ask our PD’s to do the same.

  16. Posted

    5 minutes ago, CJack said:

    Francisco permit case was heard post Bruen (and because of Bruen) and issued with all the same restrictions. Concerning is if Superior Courts (or someone behind the scenes) are coordinating this and rolling out restrictions.

    I wonder if Francisco's suit opened the door to this? If he had applied post Bruen like anyone else, would he have been given all the restrictions? I'm beginning to think that without the suit he'd be treated like everyone else who applied. Possibly the only restriction was the named guns he qualified with. Maybe the judge wanted to cover her butt and issued the restrictions. Has anyone read the complaint? Perhaps some of the restrictions were triggered by the plaintiff and defendant arguing before her honor? They do have to address everything unless they moot the case and tell Francisco to re-apply.

  17. Posted

    3 hours ago, NorthernYankee said:

    It might not be a work permit.

    https://bearingarms.com/john-petrolino/2022/08/31/challenger-to-njs-unconstitutional-law-granted-carry-permit-kind-of-n61978?fbclid=IwAR0FMiggJNAUvjjLMPbWBXqq_WpbqSokjiSAjC7jTkxx6CYQt--naVOotqw

    So Daniel Francisco was part of a suit over a carry permit. I listened to his video. His permit quest started maybe two years before Bruen. I'm guessing the judge's bizarre order was colored by the suit, possibly payback? I'd like to see how all of us who simply applied after Bruen will fare as far as restrictions.

  20. Posted

    17 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

    Yeah, I just saw that.  I replied before reading the whole thread through.

    Still, even if this poor schlub applied before Bruen, you would think the restrictions would follow that ruling. My friend who received his permit from this judge had no such letter. He just had the pistols listed. My guess is this is an outlier and we can confidently ignore this as the new norm.

  21. Posted

    9 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

    Correct. Concurrences and dissents may be cited as dicta but they’re not binding precedent. 

    The "only" opinion that matters is the majority opinion signed by the majority of justices. The only order that legally counts is the actual order at the very end of the document. It's generally a sentence or two and is laser focused on the actual question before the court. The other stuff is "dicta" and does not hold the force of law. However, dicta is strongest in the majority opinion and is cited in future arguments before the court because it is the legal and logical basis of that decision. So technically the "sensitive area" dicta doesn't have the force of law, it is instructive per Justice Thomas for lower courts when deciding upcoming cases. Likewise the dicta on how to use text and history obviously has no force of law, just look at what NY did with its new set of 2A laws. NY and other hostile states will need to be dragged to court and then new precedent will be established. We all know common sense says these laws fly in the face of Bruen but it will take a federal judge to slap them down.

  25. Posted

    4 hours ago, Jim Jones said:

    ok. Had a very annoying morning.  I work a minute from PA so I figured I should get my PA permit, incase I am detoured into PA I do not want to get a felony by accident for crossing state lines.  I researched and you fill out the application, provide your NJ carry permit, give them $20, they take the picture on the spot. PA state police website says any Sheriff’s department in PA can handle. So I drive 45 minutes to Bucks county and they refuse out of state permits.  Honestly unbelievable because the website says any sheriff’s department can handle it. She got very nasty with me and said it’s the Sheriff’s decision.

    long story short if you are going to do this do not go to Buck’s county. Does anyone know a sheriff in PA that will do it for out of state resident?

    also what are your thoughts on using the Utah and FL concealed permit that I have? The reciprocity between them seems like a gray area.

    any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Try this for a list of non-resident friendly sheriffs : https://www.pafoa.org/counties/

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...