Jump to content
CJack

NJ Handgun Carry Permit Application Experience

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lucky Lefty said:

According to FB page Middlesex County CCW, a gentleman claims he spoke to a "Veronica" and she said the judge has "signed a few" and is having trouble getting to the permits amongst busy court schedule.

One gentleman from Middlesex chimed in and said his permit has been at the court since July 19 and it's been crickets.

After skimming through the page, I did not find anyone claiming to have received their permit yet.

Middlesex seems to be a black hole into which Police Department approved applications go in and nothing comes out. 

It’s been reported in previous pages that the original judge assigned to review permit applications is no longer assigned and permit applications have now been assigned to two other judge’s.

Any other information from Middlesex would be sincerely appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CapGuns&SnapsKid said:

my kids mother filed for a RO and child support in 08' and it was granted, then she filed a motion for both to be dismissed 2yrs later 10'..Anthony from GFH on his podcast said any kind of DV is subject for denial since judges can use "public safety" even though I'm currently a FID holder and had an expungement in 16' it raises my concern. 

Yea I listened to that podcast too...Anthony leans to the exaggeration side a little...I guess the question he needed to answer for folks who might follow his advise, if you were to withdraw, what is going to change in the future to give an all clear for you to resubmit? Yea, if NJ was to remove the "judge" step that would work, but I don't see that happening for a long time, or maybe never in NJ (as much as I believe it should).

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Sep 28, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Kimberly Nye <[email protected]> wrote:

Your permit is complete and has been mailed out today to the Toms River PD. They will contact you for pick up.

-Kim

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:48 PM
To: Kimberly Nye <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Permit to Carry

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Judiciary organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi Kimberly,

My application has been with the court since July.

Can I get an update please, thanks.

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

On Sep 28, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Kimberly Nye <[email protected]> wrote:

Your permit is complete and has been mailed out today to the Toms River PD. They will contact you for pick up.

-Kim

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:48 PM
To: Kimberly Nye <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Permit to Carry

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Judiciary organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi Kimberly,

My application has been with the court since July.

Can I get an update please, thanks.

 

Excellent! Congratulations!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

Middlesex seems to be a black hole into which Police Department approved applications go in and nothing comes out. 

It’s been reported in previous pages that the original judge assigned to review permit applications is no longer assigned and permit applications have now been assigned to two other judge’s.

Any other information from Middlesex would be sincerely appreciated. 

Other than the one denial that went public and the information circulating that Judge Rea will be handing off some of the work to Judge Jiminez and Judge Corson. That's all I have at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, galapoola said:

On Sep 28, 2022, at 11:16 AM, Kimberly Nye <[email protected]> wrote:

Your permit is complete and has been mailed out today to the Toms River PD. They will contact you for pick up.

-Kim

From: 
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 10:48 PM
To: Kimberly Nye <[email protected]>
Subject: [External]Permit to Carry

 

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the Judiciary organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

 

Hi Kimberly,

My application has been with the court since July.

Can I get an update please, thanks.

 

Congrats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, marlintag said:

 I have been considering retaining an attorney to assist here in Middlesex. There just not issuing permits, a lawsuit may have to be filed to get things moving.

I'm not in favor of filing a lawsuit like that now.  1998 Adler v, Livak.  Adler sued Franklin Twp. police chief Livak because he took longer than the 30 days required by law to issue a firearms ID card.  The court ruled that police departments do not have to issue an FID card within 30 days even though that's what the law says.  The reasoning was basically that it takes a long time to do a background check so the police can take longer than 30 days.

Issuing carry permits to the masses is brand new in NJ and police departments and the courts are legitimately overwhelmed right now.  Eventually, a better system will be put in place and they won't be as overwhelmed.  If we file a law suit right now, there is a legitimate argument that they can't do the background checks required by law and also follow the 60 day law.  I think we would lose that case based on the "it just takes longer than 60 days" argument.   If we lose in court now, case law is established and the 60 day rule is gone forever.

If we wait to file a law suit until things calm down and there is no longer a legitimate reason for the delays, we might win the case - although in NJ, it's still a long shot.

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SJ Guns said:

I'm not in favor of filing a lawsuit like that now.  1998 Adler v, Livak.  Adler sued Franklin Twp. police chief Livak because he took longer than the 30 days required by law to issue a firearms ID card.  The court ruled that police departments do not have to issue an FID card within 30 days even though that's what the law says.  The reasoning was basically that it takes a long time to do a background check so the police can take longer than 30 days.

Issuing carry permits to the masses is brand new in NJ and police departments and the courts are legitimately overwhelmed right now.  Eventually, a better system will be put in place and they won't be as overwhelmed.  If we file a law suit right now, there is a legitimate argument that they can't do the background checks required by law and also follow the 60 day law.  I think we would lose that case based on the "it just takes longer than 60 days" argument.   If we lose in court now, case law is established and the 60 day rule is gone forever.

If we wait to file a law suit until things calm down and there is no longer a legitimate reason for the delays, we might win the case - although in NJ, it's still a long shot.

I agree that a lawsuit needs to be done right.   
But the issue is not the background check, it’s that certain county courts are just sitting on the police department approved applications. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, SJ Guns said:

I'm not in favor of filing a lawsuit like that now.  1998 Adler v, Livak.  Adler sued Franklin Twp. police chief Livak because he took longer than the 30 days required by law to issue a firearms ID card.  The court ruled that police departments do not have to issue an FID card within 30 days even though that's what the law says.  The reasoning was basically that it takes a long time to do a background check so the police can take longer than 30 days.

Issuing carry permits to the masses is brand new in NJ and police departments and the courts are legitimately overwhelmed right now.  Eventually, a better system will be put in place and they won't be as overwhelmed.  If we file a law suit right now, there is a legitimate argument that they can't do the background checks required by law and also follow the 60 day law.  I think we would lose that case based on the "it just takes longer than 60 days" argument.   If we lose in court now, case law is established and the 60 day rule is gone forever.

If we wait to file a law suit until things calm down and there is no longer a legitimate reason for the delays, we might win the case - although in NJ, it's still a long shot.

1998? 

Things are much different now. 

NICS... is INSTANT.. 

The only reason it takes long in NJ is because they made it, even then it's only max a couple days at its worst. Pre pandemic, NJ NICS took an hour or two. 

That argument wouldn't fly anymore if challenged. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Courts don't do the background checks. The police do the background checks. Courts are not subject to a 60 day investigation limit, that is also on the PD. The job of the courts, according to New Jersey Penal Code 29C:58-4(c) is to evaluate the evidence furnished by the police with an approved application to confirm that the applicant won't be a danger to himself or others:

"The court shall issue the permit to the applicant if, but only if, it is satisfied that the applicant is a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns..."

Given that all of the investigative legwork has already been done by the time a court receives an approved application, there is really very little the court needs to do another than "rubber stamp" approve the application. The function of the courts in the past was to pretend to evaluate justifiable need and conclude that it didn't exist so as to deny the application (the fact that the judges and staff were previously conditioned to near-universal denial may be a big part of the problem). The limit on the courts is 44 days after receiving an approved application from PD (30 days for review and 14 more for consideration), imposed by directive #06-19 issued by Glenn A. Grant, Administrative Director of New Jersey Courts. It is very unclear to what extent court staffing issues are fueling the delays; in some cases it it pretty obvious that a court has elected to just sit on applications, no matter what. 

Also, there are two differences between the court decision re: FID and a potential ultimate decsion re: PtC application processing that may be important: the FID process does not stipulate automatic approval after 30 days, the PtC statute does stipulate that action after 60 days; the FID decision was taken before the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision emphatically affirming 2A and the application of 14A to it. 

I would add that a background check is an administrative process that the judiciary is told was completed through approval of a application. 

ANY PD being requested this information should do what was done prior and refuse. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the Ocean County order and at the top of the page there is mention of the prosecutor's office not finding anything. So apparently the judge is being redundant, no shock there. We background check for an FID, then for a pistol permit and yet again at the point of purchase. I like how they do it in one of the Carolina's, if you have a carry permit, no NICs needed for gun purchase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I'm pretty sure that if the judge deems the process complete after issuing the permit and the accompanying court order, it would be entirely at her discretion whether or not to grant a hearing for clarification at the new permit holder's request. Guess what the outcome of that would be? That judge isn't going revisit or discuss/debate those restrictions unless forced to do so by litigation. Re: the guy in Westfield, was he "told" of the restriction to the qualifying guns (your term) or is it written on his permit or an accompanying document? That's an important distinction. Thanks.

Here is a screenshot of his post.

He says guns are listed on permit and those are the only ones he can carry.

My assumption would be that his pd has notified upon picking up his permit him that he is only permitted to carry those guns listed on the permit, as seems to be the case with others who have received their permit with guns listed on the permit.

SmartSelect_20220928_162449_Samsung Internet.jpg

Share this post


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

He says gums are listed on permit and those are the only ones he can carry.

If you accept this, that is by definition a restriction that is also contrary to the statute governing permits.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

I would not be so sure that permits cannot be restricted to the guns on which the permittee qualified. 

It depends on your definition of cannot.

Are people being restricted? Yes.

Is it legal under NJ statute? Maybe.

Is it permissible under the Second Amendment as informed by history and tradition from the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights? Almost certainly not.

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NJS 2C:58-4. Permits to carry handguns

a.     Scope and duration of authority. Any person who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun issued pursuant to this section shall be authorized to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as prohibited by section 2C:39-5e. One permit shall be sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder thereof, but the permit shall apply only to a handgun carried by the actual and legal holder of the permit.

BUT…

NJAC 13:54-2.7 Issuance of a permit to carry a handgun

(a) Upon being satisfied of the sufficiency of the application and the fulfillment of the provisions of Chapter 58, Laws of 1979, the judge shall issue a permit.

(b) The court may, at its discretion, issue a limited type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he or she may carry and where and for what purposes such handguns may be carried.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 2
  • FacePalm 1

Share this post


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

(b) The court may, at its discretion, issue a limited type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he or she may carry and where and for what purposes such handguns may be carried.

Right. Not 'where', not 'which model', not 'specific serial number', and definitely not 'not in your vehicle'.

'Types of handguns'? What? Semi vs. full auto? Revolver vs. pistol? Modern vs. antique? SA vs. DA triggers? What the hell does that mean?

And BTW, what the hell do they mean by 'purposes'. 

It's astounding that legislatures comprised of almost entirely lawyers can't write laws that don't conflict and are clear as a bell.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Doll said:

Right. Not 'where', not 'which model', not 'specific serial number', and definitely not 'not in your vehicle'.

'Types of handguns'? What? Semi vs. full auto? Revolver vs. pistol? Modern vs. antique? SA vs. DA triggers? What the hell does that mean?

And BTW, what the hell do they mean by 'purposes'. 

It's astounding that legislatures comprised of almost entirely lawyers can't write laws that don't conflict and are clear as a bell.

NJ gun laws are ALWAYS written unclear so the state has the flexibility to do whatever they want.... And unfortunately the benefit of a doubt is never given to the people.

Everything about NJ gun law is completely backwards, and I mean everything!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 45Doll said:

Right. Not 'where', not 'which model', not 'specific serial number', and definitely not 'not in your vehicle'.

'Types of handguns'? What? Semi vs. full auto? Revolver vs. pistol? Modern vs. antique? SA vs. DA triggers? What the hell does that mean?

And BTW, what the hell do they mean by 'purposes'. 

It's astounding that legislatures comprised of almost entirely lawyers can't write laws that don't conflict and are clear as a bell.

Unfortunately the statute does say "where" in reference the the judges discretion for limitations.

"The court may at its discretion issue a limited-type permit which would restrict the applicant as to the types of handguns he may carry and where and for what purposes the handguns may be carried."

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ToddD said:

Got mine today, Fellas. First and only in Burlington County. 

Also specifies the gun I qualified with on court order.  Already sent everything to strikeforce.

 

77E9524B-9EC3-4294-B9B0-A324A9FF6241.jpeg

535F5F97-1357-490D-8F35-789DA79F0E33.jpeg

48EDA7C6-27B0-431B-A680-54E4BE76EA8A.jpeg

So Burlington County is OK with you driving, good. Public transportation as well. "If restricted by the private entity" means if a mall or your church does not prohibit, you're good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CapGuns&SnapsKid said:

my kids mother filed for a RO and child support in 08' and it was granted, then she filed a motion for both to be dismissed 2yrs later 10'..Anthony from GFH on his podcast said any kind of DV is subject for denial since judges can use "public safety" even though I'm currently a FID holder and had an expungement in 16' it raises my concern. 

Im not a lawyer, so dont take this as legal advice!

But,,,  heres my take.

FIRST, you need to figure out the exact actual details!    When you say 'she filed for a RO'; its confusing. Were the police called to your residence? Were you arrested there and charged with DV?  What underlying charge for the DV?  Assault? If so, and there was evidence of physical injury or harm, then that would have been 'State vs. You' charge, and your kids mother would not have any say in your charges or dropping charges. If this is/was the case, theres no way you would have charges dropped, and you would have a criminal record of DV. And thus, you wouldnt have a FID, PtPP, or pass a NICS...  Sooooo, safe to assume she just made a claim of some sort of DV; verbal abuse name calling, threw her phone, kicked the door, etc,etc... She would be granted a TRO (temporary) and then you would HAVE to have had a hearing a short time later (14 days i think). At that hearing, the TRO would have ended, and either no more RO, or it would have become a permenant restraining order.  So its confusing when you say 2 years later she dropped it. It was either over in two weeks, or it was a permanant order. If it was permanant, you wouldnt have a FID and you wouldnt pass any background check for firearms.   So it can only be concluded you had a minor DV CHARGE; that was dropped or dismissed. you had a TRO that ended without becoming permanant. Thus you do not have a criminal record with a DV CONVICTION, and you do not have a Permant RO.  Then assuming, the expungement was for the ARREST record...  If all this is true, then you really have nothing to worry about. No conviction of DV, no active RO, so you are not a prohibited person as per statute.  If this is not entirely accurate, and your choosing not to share specific details here, thats totally understandable too!

But again, you need to positively know what your arrest charges were, what type of RO you had, what the disposition of that RO was, what (if any) charges you were convicted of and have on a criminal record, and what exactly you had expunged.

JMO, and not a lawyer!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, ToddD said:

 

48EDA7C6-27B0-431B-A680-54E4BE76EA8A.jpeg

I share an office with a permitted RPO - showed him this list.  He seems to think RPO have the same restrictions - with the exception of #8 & #9 - he thinks they are permitted to carry in bars, nightclubs - but cannot partake - i.e. #10.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JRT said:

I share an office with a permitted RPO - showed him this list.  He seems to think RPO have the same restrictions - with the exception of #8 & #9 - he thinks they are permitted to carry in bars, nightclubs - but cannot partake - i.e. #10.
 

 

 

i dunno; every RPO i know carries when ever and where ever they feel like it... Maybe its just not enforced and not a concern for them...

 

and #10, 'under the influence"... is that a single beer, or is that intoxicated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, eyeinstine said:

 

 

i dunno; every RPO i know carries when ever and where ever they feel like it... Maybe its just not enforced and not a concern for them...

 

and #10, 'under the influence"... is that a single beer, or is that intoxicated?

Do they carry 1, or anything they choose? 

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...