fslater

Your saying that yes it falls into the explain yourself category answers my question. I wouldn't try this... But according to N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3-e wouldn't the same be true for a straight up switchblade?

I don't know what NJ considers gravity opening or flipper in their vague description of knives that are illegal so I'm asking for others opinion/knowledge. Are assisted knives, the kind where the opening must be started by manual finger operation via a stud and then finish the opening with spring assist NJ legal?

I was talking about 30 day for FPID and purchase permits, not ccw. Are they honoring 30 day for FPID and purchase permits now?

Asking to refrain and stating prohibited are 180 degrees apart. If the sign is printed as you say they are not even saying open carry is prohibited.

They're not..... There's a 15 inch x 15 inch spot on the corner of 125th St. and 3rd Ave. where you will be G2G

Does this only apply to legal, law abiding CCW holders or people that are caught with an illegally carried firearms as well? I have a feeling for the later it will be status quo... no action taken

When did this start? I know its been on the books for years, but they've also circumvented it for years via a camden judge ruling public safety supersedes it (if investigation not complete in that 60 days), and using that as precedent. Is it now being enforce?

With SCOTUS instructing lower courts to use one step vs two step scrutiny, we're going to see a mountain of case reconsiderations in lower courts

They are thinking, logically, applying common sense in regard to their own desired end. Make it as difficult, time consuming and expensive, if not impossible for the average person in NJ to possess a firearm in NJ for any reason. I would say, that's the part no one says out loud, But actually Gov Beaver does on a regular basis and is proud of it at that.

I'm thinking/hoping that when these infinite law suits, if not handled properly by lower courts and are clearly about laws trying to circumvent SCOTUS Just Cause ruling and make it to SCOTUS, those justices will grow warry of this scheme and make rulings so broadly as to preemptively negate those circumventing arguments

This is a copy and paste of I thread I started but seemed to have gotten buried in the list without being much seen. Its in regard to 30 day must issue or deny statute that is routinely (to say the least) ignored. The whole premise of NJ being able to ignore the time table they themselves made law, is grounded in some camden judge ruling in the interest of public safety a permit or initial ID card does not have to meet this time table until their investigation is complete (give issuing authority carte blanche as when they decide to get around to looking at or doing anything what so ever with your application) In today's NY CCW ruling Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion: ""In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Does this SUPREME COURT RULING/opinion not directly apply to and negate the precedent set by this camden judge and replace it with the above as precedent? i.e. Statute says must issue or deny within 30 days, issuing authority must issue or deny within 30 days. the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest.

NJSP have electronic fingerprints from one's original FID application. They require and additional copy of the same thing for a CCW upgrade?

I may be wrong about this, or it may have been changed sense I first heard about it, But isn't it in NJ, you have to qualify with each and every particular firearm you intend/are authorized to carry and then that particular firearm is listed on your CCW credentials and you may only carry listed firearms? The reason I say this in this thread is each qualification would be accompanied by it's own fee. You have 5 guns you may wish to carry at different times. Would require 5 qualification ranges sessions with a separate fee for each.

This sounds reticules, but I wonder if NJ is keeping it incase you use a reason other than self defense and they think they can keep "Justifiable Need" but only have to accept self defense as a qualifier? Like I said, sounds reticules, but this is NJ we're talking about. The other side of the coin may be, they don't intend to comply until the specific case of NJ is heard in court. The case everything is revolving around sets precedence, for future cases.... It does not however in itself strike down any other states laws that are in violation until they themselves are taken to court. It may create a slam dunk argument, but still has to be heard case by case, state by state to strike down a specific states violating law if the state pushes it to that point. This is the way I see it and I may be completely wrong. But what I am not wrong about is NJ will grab at every straw it possibly can to circumvent the California ruling

Actually I'd like to see a case go to SCOUTS arguing that if the state requires training in order to exercise a right, they must provide that training at no cost. They shouldn't be able to attach any cost to the process required to exercise a constitutional right. In the case of vehicle inspection, you can go to a private inspection station, and pay to have your vehicle inspection done (typically meaning you failed at the state so your paying to get a passed sticker), Or go to a state inspection and the state fulfills the requirement at no cost. Only difference being in the case of vehicle inspection, they are negating a cost associated with a privilege vs they will not negate the cost in the same way to exercise a right. As I said at the beginning, I'd like to see this in court.