PDM

If you expect SCOTUS to step in an knock down a mag capacity limit you will be waiting a long, long time -- ie, forever. Not gonna happen. Stop with the SCOTUS white knight fantasies. It doesn't work that way. Have we learned nothing from the denials of cert in every single carry case thus far (fingers crossed on Peruta, which we will know about on Monday, but don't hold your breath)?

Aaaaaaaand .... once again, not action on Peruta at last conference, Results of last conference announced this morning and no mention of Peruta. Or Masterpiece Cakeshop by the way, another interesting case and one that anyone who cares about the 1st amendment should care very deeply about.

One step at a time. Even if Peruta is heard by the Court and we win, I have no doubt that NJ will push the envelope to make it as difficult as possible to obtain a permit and may not even comply at all without another lawsuit. Best case, even with a win, this will take years.

Agree with that, unless 1) for some reason Gorsuch is more persuasive than Scalia or perhaps perceived as more likely to compromise in some way or 2) Peruta is different than the Drake and the other carry cases. I'm not sure why that would be -- the good cause issue seems pretty identical to justifiable need and both NJ and CA ban open carry so this really isn't just a concealed carry case (which might have an uphill battle even with the pro-2A judges) but rather a "bear arms" case. One other possibility is that there is just more room on the calendar, or perhaps the justices were waiting for all of the pending cases, including Peruta, to make their way through the appeals process before granting cert. I'm not optimistic, but have some hope.

No action on Peruta. Assume will be relisted for the next conference.

When I get around to doing this, I plan on applying for a purchase permit immediately after the permit to possess application is rejected. That will at least flush out the denial issue immediately. I am researching cases on neglect of duty by a public official, the thought being that there could be some liability if a public official arbitrarily denies an application, but I'm pretty sure that is not a viable claim. NJ actually did have such a statute at one point, but it was repealed (of course).

I know the topic of pros/cons of submitting a NJ permit to possess application knowing that rejection will certainly follow has been discussed ad nauseum, but I raise it again out of a sense of ever increasing frustration to see if there are any fresh ideas as to potential reasons to submit. As far as I can tell nothing has ever come of a concerted effort to file applications and I am quite familiar with the arguments against -- particularly the alleged potential problems created by having to report the denial on future FID or out of state CCW or other firearms applications. Our local Police chief -- who is not rabidly anti-gun as far as I can tell and runs a department that is relatively friendly and helpful when it comes to processing FID cards and pistol purchase permits -- has apparently said (I get this second hand) that he has talked to all the local Bergen county judges and all have clearly said they will never approve an application other than retired police and he doesn't want to waste his time, and also opined that a denial will create problems for future applications. Here are my thoughts as to reasons why to submit: 1. It is the right thing to do. It certainly will be futile, at least in the near term, but I feel that remaining silent and acquiescing is just wrong. If a town passed an ordinance that no new churches or synagogues could be built, and threatened anyone who filed for a building permit for a church with the inability to ever obtain a permit for their personal residence, would people just meekly go along? It is astounding that everyone swallows the absurd threat that a CCW denial based solely on the state's arbitrary and capricious justifiable need standard rather than any personal fault could ever be used for a future denial of another permit. I was just at a private Utah CCW class attended by successful, prominent people -- doctors, lawyers, business professionals -- and it struck me how absurd it is that we are all going through this ass backwards process of applying for a permit from Utah in the hope that national carry reciprocity will somehow help us here (and I seriously doubt that it will). Why don't we also speak up? Our rights are being trampled, we are cowed by literal threats from our local officials, and we all bend over and take. 2. It will make a statement, which just might have an impact. Will Loretta Weinberg or any of the other anti-gun politicians change their anti-gun views? No. But if enough people apply, if enough people make some noise, and if word gets out it may, over time, add one small point of leverage that could make a difference. I have no hope of an organized state wide effort developing, but I am very strongly considering applyinh on my own. I really am not concerned about any impact on future applications. Any thoughts, new or rehashed, would be welcome.

Tasty...

It is not worth responding to this nonsense, but I'm really trying to understand. Why do you think he owes you anything? And do you really imagine that he has some magic answer that he can share that will let the rest of us "beat the system"? You sound like a whiny, spoiled child. (And, I'm guessing that, no, he really doesn't feel stupid.) You are a perfect example of the welfare state mentality. It's someone else's responsibility to take care of your needs and make it better, right? You are jealous of what someone else has and, despite that person spending inordinate amounts of time and money working to fix the system, you criticize him because he has what you are unable to obtain, Let me help you out. Here is how you can beat the system: 1) Allocate $50,000 or so and hire a real lawyer (not one of the freebies from ANJRPC) to help you navigate the permit process and grease the skids. Don't have that kind of cash? Ok, build a successful business or go back to school and get your GED and a college degree. 2) Make some serious political and or business connections, through some combination of large political donations, charity and community work, and sheer force of personality. It might help to have some colorable claim that you meet the justifiable need standard. Not currently in the cards? Well, put down the Xbox controller, get out of your parents' basement, and get to work, 3) Get lucky. There, simple isn't it? In the meantime, buy yourself a giant tube if Vagisil and try to relax.

Cert decisions came out at 930 and Peruta was not on the list, but was also not listed as denied. So no word on status. I don't know what that means.

Exactly.

So, completely hypothetically, if you had a brother-in law or good buddy in the NJ legislature or in the county prosecutor's office or whatever who offered to facilitate your getting a permit by calling your local police chief and putting in a good word with the judge with no quid pro quo, and assuming you were able to confirm with a lawyer that no laws were being broken, you'd say no? I suspect not. And if you said yes and got a permit, would you be willing to discuss it in public? I suspect not. Totally agree that the laws need to be straightened out, and if the person we are discussing had anything to do with the laws not being straight, I'd agree with you, but that is clearly not the case. You are expecting someone who already goes above and beyond in supporting the cause to put his own permit and perhaps more at risk by publicizing how he got the permit? I call bullshit on that. If you want to criticize someone, look to people like Michael Wildes, the former mayor of Englewood, who has publicly acknowledged he has a permit (and who I've personally seen stroll into the Tenalfy RPC with a glock strapped to his hip), yet has taken every opportunity to oppose concealed carry for everyone else (he gave a public interview to Al Jazeera on this after Sandy Hook). THAT is hypocrisy and bullshit of the highest order. A private citizen who happens to have gotten a permit by whatever means and also happens to run a gun related business and to go way above and beyond supporting the 2A in this state is a completely different matter.

I also suspect he got it because he has connections but have zero knowledge if that is correct. Just process of elimination as there is no other way. But if true that doesnt bother me in the least, just like i am not bothered when people legally game the system through tax loopholes. The system sucks we all agree. But at least he is working to make it better for everyone and not just being satisfied with what he has.

Sorry, totally disagree. You have it exactly backwards. He is a businessman who happens to have taken it upon himself to advance the cause of 2A rights in NJ. He has done and is doing more than any other single person to advance 2A rights in this state, which should be appreciated. Have the owners of any other ranges done anywhere near as much? That's not a knock on them, as they aren't obligated to, but we should at least give credit where credit is due. The fact that he runs a range and training programs and has a popular podcast in no way obligates him to disclose private aspects of his own life, including his ability to get a permit. Plus, how would that knowledge help any of us? Do you think he has some secret formula that the rest of us could use if only he discloses it? If he got his permit through personal connections or influence, good for him. Why would he want to discuss it and jeapordize that. Sometimes the lack of appreciation by the armchair warriors on this forum is astounding -- from NJ2AS, to ANJRPC to GFH.

Why should he discuss it? It's none of anyone's business. If he has a connection, or hired a good lawyer, or got lucky, good for him.

I think Kennedy is the least reliable of the Heller five member majority on 2A issues.

There is no way to know. Drake was rescheduled two or three times and cert was ultimately denied. It could be thw juustices are debating whether ro hear it. It could be that gorsuch wants time to consider it. Or it could be purely administrative.

Looks like this has been rescheduled again. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/peruta-v-california/

Exactly, Hard to see why there would be a different result now as the composition of the Court has been restored to where it was but not improved. We need one or more of Ginsberg (84) Breyer (79) and Kennedy (81) to head out to pasture in the next two years, and would be nice if Thomas (69) would retire so that a younger conservative judge could take his place.

Correction: If you think the Potus gives two shits about anyone's rights or anything other than himself, you are one gullible dude.

I am not an expert in political campaigns but the only hope I see is to pour resources into any NJ Districts that can be identified that are vulnerable for the Democrats. There must be a few such swing districts. Chip away at the margins, and try to make examples of people where possible. It just might get at least a few politicians in Trenton thinking. That plus continued PR campaigns, building more ranges, educating people about the gun issue -- trying to build or rebuild at least some "gun culture" in this state where just maybe someday a critical mass of motivated and informed voters could make a difference.

I live in Loretta Weinberg's District 37. That district has 61,000 (45%) registered Democrats and 17,000 registered Republicans (13%), with the rest of registered voters being independent. The DIstrict has NEVER sent anyone other than Democrats to Trenton. I've talked to many of my friends, including fellow gun owners, and almost all are ambivalent or completely ignorant about local District 37 politics. As we were talking, someone passed by and overheard our discussion of Loretta Weinberg and chimed in "I hate Loretta Weinberg". I'm sure there are many that feel that way but have never voted in a local election. With such a built in disadvantage and so much apathy, it is virtually impossible to unseat her and the same applies in many if not most Districts state wide. That is our problem. One of the smallest per capita gun owernship percentages in the country, a built in Democrat advantage, widespread apathy, and a motivated and extreme entrenched progressive political machine = no hope of change on the gun issue.

She was referring to the NJ State Constitution; in other words, that the NJ constitution allows the legislature to block an executive action, which they did and Christie ignored. I have no doubt that she has no respect for the Second Amendment in the Federal Constitution either, but I don't think that is what she was saying.

I want to understand what you are saying and I'm not sure I do. Under the system I suggested, no shall issue state would be affected. Essentially, I am suggesting that that the Feds adopt a completely voluntary shall issue system, modeled after the strictest form of shall issue permitting system (ie, NJ minus justifiable need). The training requirement could simply be based on NRA courses -- ie take a basic pistol class and maybe the equivalent of personal protection outside the home. That would negate NJ, NY, MD, etc claiming that untrained, unvetted people would wander their streets with guns. The answer to that would be no, the Feds are requiring pretty much exactly what you require, we are just not allowing you to arbitrarily deny people permits. As to prohibiting carry in courtrooms and schools, even under the reciprocity law those types of restrictions would still apply. Perhaps a federal law creating the permit could spell out areas where the permit is not valid -- courtrooms, jails, schools (without permission of the school administrator) etc. There are certainly complications, but there are many complications and problems with national reciprocity as well.

I've been suggesting this for years on various forums and people always throw up all over it because of fears of encouraging the big bad federal gubmint. A particularly inane objection is that what is given can be taken away. True, but the same goes for national reciprocity legislation, doesn't it? The key distinction is that a federal license would NOT SUPERSEDE LESS RESTRICTIVE STATE LAW. People in free states who feel they don't need a 50 state license and want to rely on their own states constitutional carry or permitting system and interstate reciprocity could do so. They would never need to get involved with the feds. Those who live in places like NJ, or who want to have the peace of mind to be able to carry in all 50 states without worrying about reciprocity,could get a Federal Permit. People could have either or both, up to them. The basis for such a license would be 1) protection of a civil right (2A), just like the Feds legislate in other civil rights areas (eg Title VII) and 2) interstate commerce, without overruling any state that chooses a less permissive standard. The federal license could be similar to the NJ license -- training, background check and proficiency test, just without justifiable need or other form of discretion -- which would severely undercut objections or legal challenges by states like NJ,