Jump to content
Bklynracer

Supreme Court Takes First 2A Case in a Decade

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

correct...but it's still a cop doing the approval/denial. that's part of why i'm asking......judges have no place in this.

Superior Court Judges have been used to make sure local Police Chiefs weren't showing favoritism.  I doubt that will change anytime soon.  Perhaps when they are overwhelmed with permits and the application process is done thru FARS.  Don't expect too many changes all at once.

I'm guessing that you are in the CAP.  I was in back in the '70s, before going in the Army.  Lots of good times at Hawk Mountain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KurtC said:

Superior Court Judges have been used to make sure local Police Chiefs weren't showing favoritism.  I doubt that will change anytime soon.  Perhaps when they are overwhelmed with permits and the application process is done thru FARS.  Don't expect too many changes all at once.

I'm guessing that you are in the CAP.  I was in back in the '70s, before going in the Army.  Lots of good times at Hawk Mountain.

i used to be. i was LGT and aerospace education officer for 079(air victory museum squadron), then moved up to wing LGT. when i got my shop, i hung on for a bit....but the shop was taking too much of my time, and i couldn't do my job well enough to be fair to everyone else, so i had to step back for a few years.

 i got to work 2 air shows at mcguire...i was running transportation for them both. we came thiiiisssssssss close to getting one of our cadets(from my squadron) a ride with thunderbird6. we did get her a 1-1 interview with her, for about a half hour. that was one of my proudest moments, because it brought that cadet out of her shell. i'll get back in when i can. i made a lot of friends, and feel like in influenced a lot of people in a good way. feel like it was the best thing i've done in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From NJ AG:

"In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need in order to get a permit to carry a handgun in public, Acting Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin today announced a directive clarifying requirements for carrying firearms in New Jersey.

Attorney General Directive No. 2022-07 clarifies that while the Supreme Court decision prevents New Jersey from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a handgun, it does not eliminate the enforcement of other permitting requirements under State law.

“I want to make it perfectly clear that carrying a handgun without a permit is still illegal in New Jersey and applicants must satisfy all other statutory and regulatory requirements – including a thorough background check – before obtaining a permit to carry here,” said Acting Attorney General Platkin. “New Jersey is leading the way by taking commonsense action to protect our residents and law enforcement officers from the daily threat of gun violence ­– and the Supreme Court decision will not change that.”

The Directive clarifies that in reviewing an individual’s application to carry, law enforcement agencies must continue to ensure that the applicant satisfies all requirements under the law, except that the applicant need not submit a written certification of justifiable need to carry a handgun.

Before issuing a carry permit, law enforcement agencies must continue to:

  • ensure that an applicant is not subject to any of the disabilities that by law would  prevent them from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or firearms purchaser identification card;
  • conduct a background check to confirm that the applicant is qualified to carry a handgun, including by ensuring that the application is, among other things, endorsed by three reputable people who have known the applicant for at least three years and can verify that the applicant is a person of good moral character and behavior; and
  • ensure that an applicant has demonstrated that they are  thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns."

 

https://www.njoag.gov/acting-ag-platkin-issues-directive-clarifying-requirements-for-carrying-firearms-in-public-in-wake-of-supreme-courts-decision/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the Squadron at McGuire AFB.  The Seniors were mostly Vietnam vet chopper pilots, so we got to fly around in Hueys now and then.  Went to the Ranger School at Hawk Mtn for three courses.  They got me falling down drunk for my 16th birthday at a Ft Devens encampment.  Ah, good times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KurtC said:

I was in the Squadron at McGuire AFB.  The Seniors were mostly Vietnam vet chopper pilots, so we got to fly around in Hueys now and then.  Went to the Ranger School at Hawk Mtn for three courses.  They got me falling down drunk for my 16th birthday at a Ft Devens encampment.  Ah, good times.

dam! i never went to hawk mountain. some of my cadets did though. one of those became a eod guy in the marines. he's got his own repair shop now about 10 miles from mine. that cadet i mentioned got to talk with tbird6? last i heard, she was training to fly warthogs. made me super happy. one's a helo flight instructor in florida now, another's in the coastguard.

 state pd brought southstar out to the airport one night, and spent a good 45 minutes doing q&a for my cadets. i friggin loved doing anything i could think of to help them find a direction. friend owns a helo flight school....he donated a whole nights worth of time in his simulator. had instructors from the r/c club i was in work with me to let them fly r/c aircraft.

 

 flew witha cap instructor, and he got us permission to do touch n go's on mcguire. this was just after i'd earned my ppl. it felt like they were cutting my slow cessna flying ass a ton of slack letting us do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS from the Liberal Rag Asbury Park Press:

AKA the Afro-American wild wild west

States brace for fight over gun laws after court ruling

Jennifer McDermott

ASSOCIATED PRESS

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The Supreme Court’s decision overturning a gun-permitting law in New York has states with robust firearms restrictions scrambling to respond on two fronts – to figure out what concealed-carry measures they might be allowed to impose while also preparing to defend a wide range of other gun control policies.

The language in the court’s majority opinion heightened concern that other state laws, from setting an age limit on gun purchases to banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, may now be in jeopardy.

“The court has basically invited open season on our gun laws, and so I expect litigation across the board,” said New Jersey acting Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat. “We’re going to defend our gun laws tooth-and-nail because these gun laws save lives.”

The court ruling issued Thursday specifically overturned a New York law that had been in place since 1913 and required that people applying for a concealed carry permit demonstrate a specific need to have a gun in public, such as showing an imminent threat to their safety. The court’s conservative majority said that violated the Second Amendment, which they interpreted as protecting people’s right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home.

While the ruling does not address any other laws, the majority opinion opens the door for gun rights advocates to challenge them in the future, said Alex McCourt, the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Pro-firearms groups in several states said they plan to do just that.

Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the group is preparing to expand its legal challenges based on the high court changing the legal standard used to assess whether gun control laws are constitutional.

Courts must now consider only whether a gun control regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment’s actual text and its historical understanding, according to Thursday’s ruling. Before that, judges also could consider a state’s social justification for passing a gun control law.

Michel said the standard will affect three prominent California laws. Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons, its requirement for background checks for buying ammunition and its ban on online ammunition sales are pending before a federal appellate court.

“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” he said.

The Supreme Court also is considering whether to take up California’s law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, as well as a similar law in New Jersey. He expects the court may consider those laws under the new standard.

The new restrictive landscape for gun laws outlined in Thursday’s majority opinion is not without escape routes for states, especially those that may want to impose some limits on concealed carry permits.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said states still can require people to get a license to carry a gun and condition that on such things as background checks and mental health records. They also can limit where guns are allowed, suggesting that states can prohibit firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools, courthouses or polling places. That leaves an opening for governors and state lawmakers in New York and the six other states with similar concealed carry laws: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In California, lawmakers are amending legislation to expand the qualifications people must have to obtain a concealed carry permit and to define the places where guns would be off-limits. The revised bill will get its first hearing Tuesday, and lawmakers hope to send it quickly to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called Thursday’s Supreme Court decision shameful. Other Democratic governors, lawmakers and state attorneys general also vowed to defend or amend their gun laws.

Most state legislatures are finishing their sessions or have already ended for the year, so any response would likely have to wait until next year. Rhode Island Democratic state Rep. Robert Craven, an attorney, said he would study the opinion in the New York case to determine whether or not it creates a concern that Rhode Island’s requirements could be challenged, and whether that can be remedied by legislation.

He questioned whether the high court will now employ a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment – that the right to bear arms is absolute – and apply it to other laws, such as those banning military-style weapons.

“I see the court headed in that direction,” Craven said.

In Hawaii, Democratic state Sen. Chris Lee said lawmakers will try to determine how else they can ensure public safety and will look at screening, training requirements and ways to keep guns out of certain public spaces – provisions the justices said would be permitted.

“Bottom line is Hawaii is about to become a more dangerous place,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat. “Hawaii will go from a place where the right to carry in public is the exception to a place where not having the right to carry on the street is an exception. I see no restriction on the type of firearm.”

Gun rights groups in Hawaii and elsewhere applauded the ruling. In Maryland, Mark Pennak, president of a gun rights group challenging that state’s concealed carry law, said he’s “absolutely ecstatic” about the high court’s decision because there’s “simply no way” the law can be defended any longer.

The Democratic leaders of the Maryland General Assembly said that if necessary, they will pass legislation that complies with the new precedent but still protects residents.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, criticized the court’s opinion for limiting how states can address the proliferation of firearms in public, but vowed to protect the state’s gun control measures. He vowed that his administration “will do everything in our power to protect our residents.

  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

They were out of Shiner Bock. Dos XX was the next reasonable choice. 

You keep using that word, reasonable…I do not think it means what you think it means.  Dos XX is Mexican Coors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

THIS from the Liberal Rag Asbury Park Press:

AKA the Afro-American wild wild west

States brace for fight over gun laws after court ruling

Jennifer McDermott

ASSOCIATED PRESS

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The Supreme Court’s decision overturning a gun-permitting law in New York has states with robust firearms restrictions scrambling to respond on two fronts – to figure out what concealed-carry measures they might be allowed to impose while also preparing to defend a wide range of other gun control policies.

The language in the court’s majority opinion heightened concern that other state laws, from setting an age limit on gun purchases to banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, may now be in jeopardy.

“The court has basically invited open season on our gun laws, and so I expect litigation across the board,” said New Jersey acting Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat. “We’re going to defend our gun laws tooth-and-nail because these gun laws save lives.”

The court ruling issued Thursday specifically overturned a New York law that had been in place since 1913 and required that people applying for a concealed carry permit demonstrate a specific need to have a gun in public, such as showing an imminent threat to their safety. The court’s conservative majority said that violated the Second Amendment, which they interpreted as protecting people’s right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home.

While the ruling does not address any other laws, the majority opinion opens the door for gun rights advocates to challenge them in the future, said Alex McCourt, the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Pro-firearms groups in several states said they plan to do just that.

Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the group is preparing to expand its legal challenges based on the high court changing the legal standard used to assess whether gun control laws are constitutional.

Courts must now consider only whether a gun control regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment’s actual text and its historical understanding, according to Thursday’s ruling. Before that, judges also could consider a state’s social justification for passing a gun control law.

Michel said the standard will affect three prominent California laws. Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons, its requirement for background checks for buying ammunition and its ban on online ammunition sales are pending before a federal appellate court.

“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” he said.

The Supreme Court also is considering whether to take up California’s law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, as well as a similar law in New Jersey. He expects the court may consider those laws under the new standard.

The new restrictive landscape for gun laws outlined in Thursday’s majority opinion is not without escape routes for states, especially those that may want to impose some limits on concealed carry permits.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said states still can require people to get a license to carry a gun and condition that on such things as background checks and mental health records. They also can limit where guns are allowed, suggesting that states can prohibit firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools, courthouses or polling places. That leaves an opening for governors and state lawmakers in New York and the six other states with similar concealed carry laws: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In California, lawmakers are amending legislation to expand the qualifications people must have to obtain a concealed carry permit and to define the places where guns would be off-limits. The revised bill will get its first hearing Tuesday, and lawmakers hope to send it quickly to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called Thursday’s Supreme Court decision shameful. Other Democratic governors, lawmakers and state attorneys general also vowed to defend or amend their gun laws.

Most state legislatures are finishing their sessions or have already ended for the year, so any response would likely have to wait until next year. Rhode Island Democratic state Rep. Robert Craven, an attorney, said he would study the opinion in the New York case to determine whether or not it creates a concern that Rhode Island’s requirements could be challenged, and whether that can be remedied by legislation.

He questioned whether the high court will now employ a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment – that the right to bear arms is absolute – and apply it to other laws, such as those banning military-style weapons.

“I see the court headed in that direction,” Craven said.

In Hawaii, Democratic state Sen. Chris Lee said lawmakers will try to determine how else they can ensure public safety and will look at screening, training requirements and ways to keep guns out of certain public spaces – provisions the justices said would be permitted.

“Bottom line is Hawaii is about to become a more dangerous place,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat. “Hawaii will go from a place where the right to carry in public is the exception to a place where not having the right to carry on the street is an exception. I see no restriction on the type of firearm.”

Gun rights groups in Hawaii and elsewhere applauded the ruling. In Maryland, Mark Pennak, president of a gun rights group challenging that state’s concealed carry law, said he’s “absolutely ecstatic” about the high court’s decision because there’s “simply no way” the law can be defended any longer.

The Democratic leaders of the Maryland General Assembly said that if necessary, they will pass legislation that complies with the new precedent but still protects residents.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, criticized the court’s opinion for limiting how states can address the proliferation of firearms in public, but vowed to protect the state’s gun control measures. He vowed that his administration “will do everything in our power to protect our residents.

Liberal tears are a great way to start one’s morning! 

  • Agree 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Downtownv said:

THIS from the Liberal Rag Asbury Park Press:

AKA the Afro-American wild wild west

States brace for fight over gun laws after court ruling

Jennifer McDermott

ASSOCIATED PRESS

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – The Supreme Court’s decision overturning a gun-permitting law in New York has states with robust firearms restrictions scrambling to respond on two fronts – to figure out what concealed-carry measures they might be allowed to impose while also preparing to defend a wide range of other gun control policies.

The language in the court’s majority opinion heightened concern that other state laws, from setting an age limit on gun purchases to banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, may now be in jeopardy.

“The court has basically invited open season on our gun laws, and so I expect litigation across the board,” said New Jersey acting Attorney General Matt Platkin, a Democrat. “We’re going to defend our gun laws tooth-and-nail because these gun laws save lives.”

The court ruling issued Thursday specifically overturned a New York law that had been in place since 1913 and required that people applying for a concealed carry permit demonstrate a specific need to have a gun in public, such as showing an imminent threat to their safety. The court’s conservative majority said that violated the Second Amendment, which they interpreted as protecting people’s right to carry a gun for self-defense outside the home.

While the ruling does not address any other laws, the majority opinion opens the door for gun rights advocates to challenge them in the future, said Alex McCourt, the director of legal research for the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

Pro-firearms groups in several states said they plan to do just that.

Attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, said the group is preparing to expand its legal challenges based on the high court changing the legal standard used to assess whether gun control laws are constitutional.

Courts must now consider only whether a gun control regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment’s actual text and its historical understanding, according to Thursday’s ruling. Before that, judges also could consider a state’s social justification for passing a gun control law.

Michel said the standard will affect three prominent California laws. Legal challenges to the state’s limits on assault weapons, its requirement for background checks for buying ammunition and its ban on online ammunition sales are pending before a federal appellate court.

“All of these laws should be struck down under this new Supreme Court standard,” he said.

The Supreme Court also is considering whether to take up California’s law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, as well as a similar law in New Jersey. He expects the court may consider those laws under the new standard.

The new restrictive landscape for gun laws outlined in Thursday’s majority opinion is not without escape routes for states, especially those that may want to impose some limits on concealed carry permits.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said states still can require people to get a license to carry a gun and condition that on such things as background checks and mental health records. They also can limit where guns are allowed, suggesting that states can prohibit firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools, courthouses or polling places. That leaves an opening for governors and state lawmakers in New York and the six other states with similar concealed carry laws: California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

In California, lawmakers are amending legislation to expand the qualifications people must have to obtain a concealed carry permit and to define the places where guns would be off-limits. The revised bill will get its first hearing Tuesday, and lawmakers hope to send it quickly to Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called Thursday’s Supreme Court decision shameful. Other Democratic governors, lawmakers and state attorneys general also vowed to defend or amend their gun laws.

Most state legislatures are finishing their sessions or have already ended for the year, so any response would likely have to wait until next year. Rhode Island Democratic state Rep. Robert Craven, an attorney, said he would study the opinion in the New York case to determine whether or not it creates a concern that Rhode Island’s requirements could be challenged, and whether that can be remedied by legislation.

He questioned whether the high court will now employ a strict interpretation of the Second Amendment – that the right to bear arms is absolute – and apply it to other laws, such as those banning military-style weapons.

“I see the court headed in that direction,” Craven said.

In Hawaii, Democratic state Sen. Chris Lee said lawmakers will try to determine how else they can ensure public safety and will look at screening, training requirements and ways to keep guns out of certain public spaces – provisions the justices said would be permitted.

“Bottom line is Hawaii is about to become a more dangerous place,” said state Sen. Karl Rhoads, a Democrat. “Hawaii will go from a place where the right to carry in public is the exception to a place where not having the right to carry on the street is an exception. I see no restriction on the type of firearm.”

Gun rights groups in Hawaii and elsewhere applauded the ruling. In Maryland, Mark Pennak, president of a gun rights group challenging that state’s concealed carry law, said he’s “absolutely ecstatic” about the high court’s decision because there’s “simply no way” the law can be defended any longer.

The Democratic leaders of the Maryland General Assembly said that if necessary, they will pass legislation that complies with the new precedent but still protects residents.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat, criticized the court’s opinion for limiting how states can address the proliferation of firearms in public, but vowed to protect the state’s gun control measures. He vowed that his administration “will do everything in our power to protect our residents.

i didnt' read the whole thing....but it kinda hit me last night when i was talking about this ruling to a friend. technically speaking, this could topple the whole house of cards in states like nj. it leaves things wide open for challenges on pretty much everything. even the so-called awb here. i mean.....if ya read the statutes(i know most have) what it really comes down to, is that all firearms in nj are illegal with exceptions and exemptions. based on that with this ruling, it should be super easy at this point to get back to normal capacity mags, lose the list of banned firearms, etc.

 

 overall, they did the same with this that the roe decision did....they took the power and put it where it belongs. constitutionally, no state really ever had the authority to regulate firearms or accessories, just as constitutionally the feds never had the authority to regulate baby-murder.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Downtownv said:

I suppose the ROE v WADE is perfect timing, it diverted the progressive libs, pea brains, to a different focus and off us!

I have a hunch the timing was intentional.

[insert Forrest Gump "just like that" meme]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

this could topple the whole house of cards in states like nj. it leaves things wide open for challenges on pretty much everything.

If I remember right there were quite a few cases held either at Scotus or circuit courts waiting on the result from Bruen.   One was the NJ mag challenge and I think an AWB (MD?).   Also the CA mag, ammo, and AWB are there somewhere.  Since those cases are already at a high level they should quickly get sent back to be redecided with the new precedent.   We shouldn’t have to wait for a new case to make its way up.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

If I remember right there were quite a few cases held either at Scotus or circuit courts waiting on the result from Bruen.   One was the NJ mag challenge and I think an AWB (MD?).   Also the CA mag, ammo, and AWB are there somewhere.  Since those cases are already at a high level they should quickly get sent back to be redecided with the new precedent.   We shouldn’t have to wait for a new case to make its way up.  

I was just reading about those cases, you are correct. 
 

I really DO think the AWB will fall, as well as mag limits, and restrictions on buying ammo (requiring BG checks for ammo and restrictions of buying online). 
 

The Bruen ruling has very significant impact on nearly all anti-2A laws. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, KurtC said:

This is where the permitting system remains subjective.   You have to convince your Chief of Police and a Superior Court Judge that you have satisfied the competency requirement.

You can easily find out from your local PD as to what they will accept.  The Superior Court Judge, not so much.  There is no way of knowing which judge your application will come before.   There are usually several in each county. 

Just take the nra basic pistol class.  The instructor will probably have range time qualifications set up after the class.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, KurtC said:

The AG website has a constituent contact page.   Fill it out asking how the new directive affects current permit holders that have restrictions under the old directives. 

Got the AG link. Fired off my question now. Their email says they are in receipt of my question and have given themselves 10 business days to respond. I will post their response immediately upon receipt. I hope it will not be some form reply like: 'Thank you for contacting the AG... blah blah blah. We recommend you continue to follow the NJ permit to carry regulations as before, until further notice. Have a nice day....'

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

The Bruen ruling has very significant impact on nearly all anti-2A laws. 

Killing Intermediate and even Strict Scrutiny will do that.   More importantly the NJ mag ban sitting at scotus could get resolved as early as Monday if they remand it back to the 3rd or better summary rule based on Bruen.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Killing Intermediate and even Strict Scrutiny will do that.   More importantly the NJ mag ban sitting at scotus could get resolved as early as Monday if they remand it back to the 3rd or better summary rule based on Bruen.  

I would think that this will happen fairly quickly. I would expect the Md and Ca AWB cases would be sorted out quick fast and in a hurry. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

If I remember right there were quite a few cases held either at Scotus or circuit courts waiting on the result from Bruen.   One was the NJ mag challenge and I think an AWB (MD?).   Also the CA mag, ammo, and AWB are there somewhere.  Since those cases are already at a high level they should quickly get sent back to be redecided with the new precedent.   We shouldn’t have to wait for a new case to make its way up.  

I suspect that decisions for the cases already pending for SCOTUS won't be released until nex term, though. I'd like to be wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding training/qualification. There is a 2-full-day NRA CCW class which is advertised as meeting the NJ CC requirements. Cost is $295. It is being offered in South Jersey by Full Metal Jacket range in Seavile on July 16 - 17 (incorrectly originally posted as "19 - 20") and July 30 - 31, and at Cumberland Riflemen in Millville on July 30 - 31. It may be available at more venues, those are just what turned up in my initial search. Unfortunately I have a conflict on the early dates; I plan to tsake the FMJ course at the end of July. 

Questions regarding other requirements. I had inked fingerprints taken several months ago for an out-of-state renewal. I have a spare set. Does anyone have reliable information on how recent the prints are required to be? How recent a photo is required? Thanks.

I will cross-post this in the Concealed Carry section, as that is really where it belongs, but everyone is understandably posting their questions and observations on the process here in their excitement over the ruling. If the mods need to clean up my cross-posting accordingly, that is fine with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...