ryan_j

I'm curious as to the perception of how many of us there are. I know it won't tell me, for that we need a census or something.

You're telling me that you plan to get back our rights by overcoming the collective vote of the inner cities who blindly vote for candidates who will keep the free stuff flowing, or based on identity politics... or who think all gun owners are like George Zimmerman just looking to kill the next person they come in contact with... and you're telling me I'm not living in the real world? The courts are absolutely not a dead end. In fact we have recently been winning in the courts - McGovern and Perez are two recent decisions that stick out. If the courts were a sure shot for the antis, they would have heard Pantano and ruled against it. But instead Stu Rabner took the coward's way out because he knows that NJ's law would not stand in a post Heller world.

The NRA lobbyist who was on Gun For Hire Radio last week seems to disagree about the numbers. He seems to think that we do not have the numbers. Or maybe I'm misreading him. Listen to last week's show. It's very informative.

Darren Goens was on GFH radio last week saying that the problem in NJ boils down primarily to numbers. Maybe he's right. The antis say that NJ gun owners are a vocal minority. Maybe they're right. I've heard the statistic of "1 million NJ gun owners" but it doesn't seem to translate into victory at the ballot box. Attempts to get hard data have been stalled by towns because of poor record keeping of FID cards. More specifically, NJ2AS tried to get the data but towns have balked at the OPRA requests. Weinberg sponsored a law last year that allowed aggregate data to be made public. But here's an informal, totally unscientific poll. I think it's important to know how many of us there are so we can concentrate efforts on outreach and see whether we have a raw numbers problem or a problem of lack of participation. Please vote. Votes are anonymous (to me, anyway).

CA is going to be shall-issue real soon when Peruta is settled. CT has the right to bear arms in its state constitution. Anyway, if you think that the legislature is going to give us shall-issue before a court precedent, by all means start a movement to lobby them. We had our chance in the last election, and we failed, quite miserably.

Fundamental rights should NEVER be up to the legislatures. Is your right to free speech up to the legislatures? How about asking the legislature to pass a law to go to church on Sunday? "A well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It may surprise you but in states that allow open carry, this is the only "law" that allows it. It's time to start treating the 2nd amendment like a right, and not a privilege. Too many in NJ have been conditioned to think it is a privilege. To see our future, look at NYC where they do in fact, call it a privilege. Anyway, it is clear that you don't want to support litigation, that is fine. We will press on, and you can enjoy the benefits when we prevail.

I'm merely calling out the fallacy that SCOTUS has to render a bad ruling for us to lose our rights and for there to be anti gun precedent. That is not true. By denying certiorari they've done the same thing. So even if SCOTUS ducks case after case, there is nothing stopping an anti gun state like NJ from denying the right to bear arms under the guise of regulating it. There is also nothing stopping a state from passing right to carry laws either. But by SCOTUS not ruling definitively, may-issue is the law of the land unless a state decides to go shall- issue.

Oregon repealed it's law.

Just stay out of philly

That's correct. A LTCF is shall issue and easy to obtain once you have a home state permit.

It does, but we have to vote the right people in. The fact that the legislature remained almost completely unchanged after the last election is extremely troubling.

No, by denying certiorari they're saying that the lower court ruling stands, which says that prohibiting the right to bear arms by fiat because it is a "longstanding, presumptively lawful regulation" is A-OK.

LOL, you guys are way too chicken to open carry. That's what she's counting on.

Fix NJ and you can get a PA LTC.

The new PA reciprocity agreement with UT took effect today: http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Crime/Utah_reciprocity_agreement.pdf As expected, it extends reciprocity to residents of Utah only.

No. If they issue a decision it will apply to more than just this case. Either way I don't see him prevailing at the appellate level, they have been emboldened by Drake and it will be petitioned to NJSC or SCOTUS. SAF wouldn't be taking this case if it applied just to him.

No. If they issue a decision it will apply to more than just this case. Either way I don't see him prevailing at the appellate level, they have been emboldened by Drake and it will be petitioned to NJSC or SCOTUS. SAF wouldn't be taking this case if it applied just to him.

Little known fact: "high capacity" magazines are legal to possess in CA. They're just not legal to buy, acquire or import into the state.

Correct this is about sale, not possession,

Appellate courts will render a decision. He won't just "get a permit."

This case was lost at the 9th circuit but is being petitioned to be reheard en banc. http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Jackson-v.-San-Francisco_Appellants-Petition-For-Rehearing-or-Rehearing-En-Banc.pdf Also it wants strict scrutiny to be used as the standard for RKBA within the home. This case has been largely ignored but has potential.

There were two parts of the argument as to why Almeida should get a permit. The primary was that he has a right under the 2nd amendment. The second was that he had justifiable need. This has the potential to strike down the justifiable need requirement as unconstitutional.

I believe the federal lawsuit (Drake) was what is commonly referred to as a "1983" lawsuit. It was not directly challenging the application. It was a lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights. 42 USC1983 "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."

Look at it this way though. If he gets his permit, we've won. This is different from the federal lawsuit where the plaintiff drops off if the permit is granted. If he gets the permit, we win.

Then they'll have to admit that they were wrong and this is why we should all apply.