Jump to content
CJack

NJ Handgun Carry Permit Application Experience

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CJack said:

So we should play nice or else ..  from the very PDs we are supposed to build "alliance" with ? 
Qualifiers are as clear as they ever can be. They even have damn names to them HQC-1. There  is a published PDF we all shared that clearly describes that course of fires is for what. There is even clearly spelled out RPO, less stringent than HQC-1.

You want to know what PDs are pulling ?  Here is some directly from first hand experience posted on FB Pages:

1. Refusing to take application entirely claiming they dont have guidance - Massive Lie.
2. Records Staff disappeared completely without even lights on during working hours .
3. Sending reference letters, again, despite the actual application clearly has certification.

4. Demanding reference letters be notatized.
5. MANDATING social security number and drivers license number from references. Or else, application aint moving
6. THREATENING  language in reference letters about getting jammed up if  you are not truthful (how the F are you supposed to know someone so deeply that even PDs cannot dig dirt up )
7. Atleast one PD, are doing their own testing.  Treating their own tax payers like children and only way to get qualification is to show up to the PD range and shoot quals.  If you fail Quals 3 times, you ain't getting permit at all.

This BS is not the mark of good police departments. And no one should be laying low and play ball .. and fear for "or else".

There is MORE from Superior Courts.  Mr. Cheeseman (the guy with bunch of denials and cases) posted on FB saying once they even dug up "unpaid dog license". So yeah, thats the kinda shit they are pulling.


If they offer #7 free or at a discount as an option that’s actually not bad.

Requiring that you use their range is bad though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, samiam said:

Oh, I get what goes down in NJ. But I very much disagree with continuing to allow it to happen unresisted. For far too long, we NJ citizens have been brainwashed into meekly accepting as privileges whatever small portion of our rights our autocratic masters deign to dole out to us. IMO the Bruen decision gives us a golden oportunity to repair at least on small part of that paradigm. Who knows, if one item from the Bill of Rights is actually granted and exercised here, more may follow. 

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step”

This decision by SCOTUS was another step in this journey of 1000 miles in NJ.

I don't think I said that it should not be allowed to continue unresisted, nor am I brainwashed.

What I am trying to indicate is that damage has been done over generations in this state, you cannot flip a switch and magically change it. 

It is a process, sometimes calm, sometimes turbulent. By you own admission your over 70...you should know that...  :drinks:

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

Not a bad demo, except it would have been better if he didn't sweep his support hand with the muzzle every time he put the gun back in the holster.

Thank you for pointing that out....  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Right it's on facebook it MUST be true.....

Look, it is possible that there are problems with local PD's and applicants as well....

My statements are not to alleviate the local pd or courts, who *may* be stonewalling, from allowing us to exercise our rights.

But you have GOT to be living in fantasy land if you thought this process was going to be smooth and easy.

You cannot take a state that has a history of anti 2A behavior to allow all of a sudden, due to a ruling from the SCOTUS, that this state was mot part of, to all of a sudden just be, " oh ok here are your permits "...no fuss no muss.

I don't put a lot of stock into stuff on facebook,, there are always two-sided to every story.

Shoot there is a thread on here about how to get passport photos...think about that, people applying to carry a deadly weapon for self defense and they can't figure out how to get a flipping passport photo done...  yea makes you wonder.

Again not to make an excuse for a PD that may be clueless as to what to do, or adding roadblocks etc. - but for Pete's sake - walk softly and use a big stick only if you have to.

Also if you are going to make stateme to as you have done above, citations and facts are appropriate- additionally if in fact that is happening- that is GREAT, and a win for us...

Why?  It will generate additional lawsuits to finally settle this once and for all, as it pertains to any onerous requirements and those abusing power.

In lieu of bitching on Facebook, who still does that BTW, get the information to the ANJRPC legal teams.

 

Haha.. bitching and facts ? Here are the facts attached. .. Hope you dont claim these are fake documents and that I should a direct letter from respective PDs.

LOT of information is sent to ANJRPC "strikeforce". Dont even get me started on that.  And apologize for being a dick, but this stuff just boils my blood.

294981390_5650625181615346_614924422612945690_n.jpg

294565351_2317188311767471_995946858775499597_n.jpg

 

294883085_10101249032466270_2820981164048333626_n.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RadioGunner said:


If they offer #7 free or at a discount as an option that’s actually not bad.

Requiring that you use their range is bad though.

I attached the actual documents I collected from the FB groups.  If they offered it in good faith, I would say kudos. You HAVE to do the test at their range, under their supervision. But you cannot practice at the said range. I am betting that range was never even open to public before this.  If you fail 3 times, you can say bye bye to your application (I know its ridiculous not to pass in 3 attempts).   But the point is, what other Fng right do they scrutinize to this extent ?

On a side note, as much as I appreciate SCOTUS finally ruling on this one, Kavanaugh and Robert left door for permit abuse WIDE OPEN.  Any chance of taking down NFA, GCA, even AWB are non-starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CJack said:

I attached the actual documents I collected from the FB groups.  If they offered it in good faith, I would say kudos. You HAVE to do the test at their range, under their supervision. But you cannot practice at the said range. I am betting that range was never even open to public before this.  If you fail 3 times, you can say bye bye to your application (I know its ridiculous not to pass in 3 attempts).   But the point is, what other Fng right do they scrutinize to this extent ?

On a side note, as much as I appreciate SCOTUS finally ruling on this one, Kavanaugh and Robert left door for permit abuse WIDE OPEN.  Any chance of taking down NFA, GCA, even AWB are non-starters.

I can't see 3 attempts forever disqualifying you? The law says you need to pass a qualifier, says nothing about how many times you can fail. The law also says you have options to qualify, and not a single one requires it be done by the police department. 

Shit, you can fail your drivers test as many times possible, and still get a license if you eventually pass. I know there is like a 2 week waiting period each time you fail. 

I wouldn't mind if they just offered it to people for ease of access, and free... but making it mandatory with a 3 fail limit is absurd, and sounds illegal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you qualify at GFH, the forms the sent me home with spells out every part of the law that is met for training and qualification, as well as the NJPS certification they hold and the licensed instructor, and course of fire 

I'm not even sure how a PD could possibly dispute it based on the law. 

Share this post


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

Haha.. bitching and facts ? Here are the facts attached. .. Hope you dont claim these are fake documents and that I should a direct letter from respective PDs.

LOT of information is sent to ANJRPC "strikeforce". Dont even get me started on that.  And apologize for being a dick, but this stuff just boils my blood.

294981390_5650625181615346_614924422612945690_n.jpg

294565351_2317188311767471_995946858775499597_n.jpg

 

Thanks and that is good info....I  not offended...and your not being a dick..lol

 

So you pick your references....and your picking people that may have a problem with affirming you ?  Then pick other references....

 

The lack of standardization was bound to be prevalent during this process....it will get sorted out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

Thanks and that is good info....I  not offended...and your not being a dick..lol

 

So you pick your references....and your picking people that may have a problem with affirming you ?  Then pick other references....

 

The lack of standardization was bound to be prevalent during this process....it will get sorted out.

 

 

Without clear standards as to the course of fire, there are still standards... requiring you to qualify by a single means the PD creates is not IMO legal. There are alternatives spelled out in the law, and the PD should follow the statute. 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, samiam said:

What about the threat of prosecution in the Clifton document? S. P. 642 already requires the applicant to attest to the fact that the references were aware of what they were supporting when they signed, and requires notarization of that fact. For all of the unfortunate crap that NJ injects in this, it is a NJ process, that is the statutary NJ standard, and that is the entirety of what should be permitted. For a municipality to go beyond that level of bullshit not only exceeds its authority, but appears to clearly be intended to intimidate the references in order to summarlly deny an application. 

I wish I had a copy of the FARS questionnaire as a reference for a pistol permit...I believe some of that language was there, or similar.

It's a stretch to say that it is meant for intimidation let alone denial....

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, samiam said:

S. P. 642, in reference to alcohol and drugs, is limited to inquiring about current issues. The Clifton document goes far beyond that ("ever been") and should be barred just on that basis. Thomas wrote that states can have "reasonable" permitting requirements, he didn't authorize municipalities to make up their own in addition to state requirements. At least Clifton has a privacy and nondisclosure statement, which the Hamilton document completely lacks, and that most likely violates any number of privacy laws. Some of these bozos may well get sued for issues that have no direct relation to Bruen or 2A. I hope there are ambitious lawyers looking at that, as well.

Definition of 'to my knowledge'

 
 
 
 

to my knowledgein British English

 
a. 
as I understand it
b. 
as I know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

I wish I had a copy of the FARS questionnaire as a reference for a pistol permit...I believe some of that language was there, or similar.

It's a stretch to say that it is meant for intimidation let alone denial....

 

Coincidentally, the attached screenshots were for a pistol permit for a Bloomfield resident. In years past, when I was also a reference, I got a form letter very similar to the above pictured reference letter, though I do not remember the SSN/DL requirements. In addition to that letter, I got a phone interview.

I was told the permits were already issued for this batch, so it was less than 15 days, and I never was mailed or phoned for anything (again, pistol permits, not carry permit)

20220723_141916.png

20220723_142009.png

Share this post


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

So, because FARS institutes an unreasonable (and quite possibly, unconstitutional) standard for ptpp, do you think it is acceptable for a municipality to extend and enhance the already unreasonable bullshit that the state of NJ creates as an obstable to allowing citizens to exercise their consitutional right to bear firearms? BTW, IANAL, but I would bet that the maximum legal standard to which a reference can be held for any purpose is "to the best of my knowledge". That is doubtless one reason the documents ask references to specifiy the length of association. 

So now your moving the goal post.....

You want unrestricted consitutional carry....cool, all for it...will never happen in NJ....

 

1 hour ago, samiam said:

I don't know if you are missing my point, or evading it. My objection had nothing to do with the limitation of "best knowledge" (see my other reply). It has to do with the time interval. Suppose an applicant had a problem with alcohol from 1980 to 1983, due to, let's say, the untimely death of a young child. In 1983, this hypothetical applicant completed rehabilitiation, and has had no further such issues. That applicant could, in good faith, answer question #21 on S. P. 642 "Are you an alcoholic" in the negative. But according to the Clifton questionnaire, a witness who knew the applicant during that time would be forced to answer "Yes" to the question: "To your knowledge, has the applicant ever been an abuser of alcohol or other illicit substance", under threat of prosecution. I do not see that as acceptable, in any way, shape, or form, and I can think of no possible motivation for it other than to manufacture an excuse to dispense with an application, whether the motivation is undermining 2A, or simply deflecting "extra work". 

Also, if "best knowledge" is the standard, prosecution of a reference if an investigation should turn up some event that the reference's attestation did not reflect, would be very difficult, if not impossible. In which case, what possible purpose could that threat on the form have other than intimidation?

You are assuming...and you know what that means.....  

i dont feel like arguing with you and couldnt really care less about what you think is legitimate or not....  your opinion and/mine is not the final arbiter of what is proper, improper, not intimidating, intimidating etc.

this thread as others has been derailed....

Maybe you should send a very strongly worded letter to Clifton telling them in your opinion they are being improper....let us know how that works out.

 

1 hour ago, Malice4you said:

Coincidentally, the attached screenshots were for a pistol permit for a Bloomfield resident. In years past, when I was also a reference, I got a form letter very similar to the above pictured reference letter, though I do not remember the SSN/DL requirements. In addition to that letter, I got a phone interview.

I was told the permits were already issued for this batch, so it was less than 15 days, and I never was mailed or phoned for anything (again, pistol permits, not carry permit)

20220723_141916.png

20220723_142009.png

Thank you....maybe it was prior to FARS... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CAL. .30 M1 said:

I wish I had a copy of the FARS questionnaire as a reference for a pistol permit...I believe some of that language was there, or similar.

It's a stretch to say that it is meant for intimidation let alone denial....

 

I agree, it's a reference to if you lied on the form.... pretty tall order to prove anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sooo let’s get back on track here! Enough of the peeing in the pool!  Within a couple months the vast majority of this forum will be able to conceal carry legally in NJ!  No one ever thought this would happen!  Positive attitude will get you positive results people!

#MAGA #FJB #LGB

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, samiam said:

Thank you for helping make my point. Like the questions in S. P. 642, the FARS questions regarding substance abuse are both about the applicant's current situation:

"To your knowledge, is the applicant an alcoholic or currently a habitual drunkard?"

"To your knowledge, does the applicant use narcotics, or is the applicant addicted to prescription medication?"

Unlike the Clifton document, which inserts the word "ever"... 

 Also, unless you omitted it, I don't see any threat of prosecution for an incorrect answer. 

I, reference x, undertake that I have responded to this questionnaire truthfully and to the best of my knowledge about the applicant.

 

If there is more, I didn't screenshot it, and I cropped out parts with names obviously, but don't remember any "penalties" mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Brandyep said:

My township wants me to supply this form to them which reloaderz is saying they cannot provide 
 

6E8A853C-CC6B-40D0-B480-6239F1BA31AB.png

So Randolph wants a use of force course....that why reloaderz won't provide it...did they give a use of force course?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, samiam said:

BTW, my New Hampshire permit took 10 business days from the day I mailed it (which was the same day I began to complete it, thanks to an absence of pure builshit required), to the day I received my permit by mail. Considering the speed of USPS First Class mail, that is nearly instantaneous. So much for the inevitability of bureaucracy. 
 

Must be awesome to be you…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, samiam said:

BTW, my New Hampshire permit took 10 business days from the day I mailed it (which was the same day I began to complete it, thanks to an absence of pure builshit required), to the day I received my permit by mail. Considering the speed of USPS First Class mail, that is nearly instantaneous. So much for the inevitability of bureaucracy. 
 

Mine goes in the mail 8/2.

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...