124gr9mm

Same for me when I applied through my local PD with paper form. Now that everything is done via online form the reference checks are done via e-mail, so they go out automatically to the recipients.

Not sure if this has been shared. https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6681/attachments/original/1695071402/Koons_v_Platkin_Reply_Brief_for_Siegel_Plaintiffs.pdf Arguing to get rid of the $200 permit fee and 4 reference requirement because they're likely to be squashed on appeal. Same argument for playgrounds/youth sports and medical facility restrictions.

No shit to that. I want to thank everyone who's "taking it for the team" by going through this nonsense multiple times. I pissed and moaned a little to my friends because I applied twice (once for permit with court order attached and the second for unrestricted) but there are people who have sunk a LOT of money into this. I'm a bit of a gun guy, so I already had guns, ammo, range time, etc, but there are some people who bought new guns, holsters, ammo, had to practice to pass quals, and paid for multiple classes. They are easily over a thousand dollars (maybe approaching $2k) sunk at this point.

The new guidance on qualification is just for qualification. You'll still have to fill out the handgun form.

I think the primary sticking point will be the need for the SP 182 form.

We'll see. It looks like the admin requirement is submission of SP 182 Version. That form (both versions) reference "HQC2 (modified)" as meeting the requirement, so if you have either form submitted it seems like you'd be good. Waiting for the 'experts' to opine...

To me it seems that part of the new communication is making the qual less 'difficult', and part is kicking things down the road to December (presumably to a point when another update from the courts comes down. If you've taken your qual already then it was done under a more stringent course of fire.

This is very good news. Hopefully it's a little momentum heading into the other pending litigation...

I suspect many PD's will have the same opinion. They have better things to do than chase down some ambiguous administrative item that may or may not be meaningful...

Glad to hear it! Should be the same for EVERYONE but I suspect some PD's will be less accommodating.

Not sure this represents a change. The latest 'form' that we've been talking about was posted in July and it's titled "Use of Force Interim Training For Private Citizen Concealed Carry", so it seems the 'interim' process is just lasting longer? file:///C:/Users/Home%20Laptop/Downloads/PTC_Use_of_Force_and_Qualification_20230721-1.pdf I guess the NJSP is saying there will be no updates to the 'interim' process until there's additional guidance.

Indeed. At the end of the day someone signing the document is taking accountability for it (even it it's for themself), so if they're a recognized Instructor who is approved to do the sign-off, I don't think it should be a show-stopper.

I get that Nappan says the sky is falling in this issue, but it's a piece of paper that's required to meet an administrative need. If you're an instructor and you sign it and submit it to your PD I can't imagine why that wouldn't be sufficient.

There was practice holster draw with an empty gun. No kneeling. No kneeling.

I took the qual class at Shooters recently just to cover myself. Class was instructed by a State Trooper who said he was responsible for much of what was officially published on the NJSP website (including the automation of the CCW application process). Use of force portion was very well done IMO. Drawing from holster was not required. There was some one-handed shooting, simulated failure to fire, mandatory reloads, and shooting from 5 - 25 yards.