Jump to content
CJack

NJ Handgun Carry Permit Application Experience

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

so what happens to the folks who have already paid and taken a course with papers submitted where the curriculum has now changed........very nice.....and I suspect it will change again.....omo.

Who said the curriculum changed ?  GFH and others have large text, red color disclaimer upfront warning about any change of requirements for NJSP. But I have not seen any published requirements from NJSP other than whats in admin code.

Share this post


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

Who said the curriculum changed ?  GFH and others have large text, red color disclaimer upfront warning about any change of requirements for NJSP. But I have not seen any published requirements from NJSP other than whats in admin code.

RTSP now says holster draw as I'm told per HQC...........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

so what happens to the folks who have already paid and taken a course with papers submitted where the curriculum has now changed........very nice.....and I suspect it will change again.....omo.

wait? what's changed??

Share this post


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

was told that RTSP now says holster draw as per HQC....

It hasn’t changed. It’s still the same as it has been for many years. People are taking a chance that what they’re doing will be good enough, even though it’s different from what is currently required. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the following yesterday on the other CCW thread:

I'll be qualifying the week after next. My location will be doing it with the holster per HQC1 requirements. There seems to be two separate camps at the moment, ranges in NJ that require holster draw for HQC1 and the ranges that don't. I am concerned about the ones that don't.

I had a premonition about this issue! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, silverado427 said:

Question can I fill out my application online and print it out , or does it need to be filled out in ink

I filled mine out on my PC and printed it. It was necessary as my handwriting is atrocious. Signatures need to be wet ink on all 3 copies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Grayson6074 said:

I know it needs to be signed in ink at the very least. I'd do it all in ink to be safe

Whoever created the on-line version of SP 642 for NJSP designed the PDF so that most required fields are input-capable (from a computer). I will assume that NJSP officially authorized that, and I intend to take advantage of it. I know that I would be more likely to make an error that had to be scratched out or written over on a paper form, so I expect my probability of making a mistake that I fail to catch before reference signing, notarization, and submission will be less that way. If someone tries to make an issue of that, I think that might be where I would dig in my heels and be looking to make some legal trouble. I don't expect that to happen. 

Share this post


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

I filled mine out on my PC and printed it. It was necessary as my handwriting is atrocious. Signatures need to be wet ink on all 3 copies.

I would make sure the "wet ink" is ball point. I have read of cases in the past (regarding signed documents in general, not specifically gun permits) where signatures were disallowed because they were done with a Flair, or some other kind of felt point pen. I believe that those cases were ultimately resolved in favor of accepting those signatures, but it's an easy thing to avoid, so why take even a small risk?

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, silverado427 said:

Whats the story with references,  are family members allowed or just friends

According to what I have read here, and what I see in the instructions, there is no restriction on the relationships between the references and the applicant. From the point of view of eliminating bias and ensuring honest appraisals from the references, I think that is ridiculous, but considering all the ways that NJ has made this process absurdly more difficult for civilians who want to carry than is justified, I'm not going to complain about one item that might appear to some to be too easy. This could be one more legacy of a process that was designed almost exclusively with LEOs/RPOs in mind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, silverado427 said:

Whats the story with references,  are family members allowed or just friends

Same as FID I imagine. The form used to say you couldn’t use family members but that was removed and now you can. If you couldn’t use them it would say so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So for all you on here who are much smarter than me.....if the different ranges have been giving different qual. tests / no standards and accepting $$$$$ and fellas have been submitting them....what the hell is everyone doin'........please explain so I can understand it.

 

GFH / Disclaimer: The State Police seems to be adding and changing requirements daily. For the people who are willing to apply early and risk changes we cannot be held liable for any changes that occur after you qualify with us. You’ve been warned. 

What the hell is this.............disclaimer, after they took one's money under obscure pretense and a test they made up themselves....please explain this......I'm dumb.

The qual. test at RTSP vs GFH is not the same standard for example and not close to HQC 1.......what is everyone spending their $$$$$ on, I need to know, I'm an imbecile, please help....Thanks..

Share this post


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

So for all you on here who are much smarter than me.....if the different ranges have been giving different qual. tests / no standards and accepting $$$$$ and fellas have been submitting them....what the hell is everyone doin'........please explain so I can understand it.

 

GFH / Disclaimer: The State Police seems to be adding and changing requirements daily. For the people who are willing to apply early and risk changes we cannot be held liable for any changes that occur after you qualify with us. You’ve been warned. 

What the hell is this.............disclaimer, after they took one's money under obscure pretense and a test they made up themselves....please explain this......I'm dumb.

The qual. test at RTSP vs GFH is not the same standard for example and not close to HQC 1.......what is everyone spending their $$$$$ on, I need to know, I'm an imbecile, please help....Thanks..

Actually it's a disclaimer BEFORE they take your money and it's called caveat emptor....

And there is no obscurity in that statement at all.

Everything that has been presented by many parties, has been to wait and see...yet there are those that do not want to - so there is a disclaimer provided.

YET, many will bitch and moan IF, there are changes and there quals, are not correct....whose fault is that then?

:popcorn:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

the disclaimer only appeared after the fact......he must be gettin' phone calls from those who have already taken the test and paid as they all must be......just coverin' his ass I guess......I dunno, I'm dumb.

Well, I do not note that, I saw it from day one....stop calling yourself dumb..wtf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That disclaimer was absolutely there on day one. I signed up for the qualifications with the understanding that things might change because the disclaimer is the first thing you read at the top of the page. I also noted the differences in the quals across different ranges and decided to go with GFH over the RTSP quals for my own reasons. I also read the actual state law which explains what satisfies the qualification requirement:

"(b) Each applicant shall demonstrate a thorough familiarity with the safe handling and use of handguns by indicating in the space provided therefor on the application form, and on any sworn attachments thereto, any relevant information. Thorough familiarity with the safe handling and use of handguns shall be evidenced by:

1. Completion of a firearms training course substantially equivalent to the firearms training approved by the Police Training Commission as described by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6j;
2. Submission of an applicant's most recent handgun qualification scores utilizing the handgun(s) he or she intends to carry as evidenced by test firings administered by a certified firearms instructor of a police academy, a certified firearms instructor of the National Rifle Association, or any other recognized certified firearms instructor; or
3. Passage of any test in this State's laws governing the use of force administered by a certified instructor of a police academy, a certified instructor of the National Rifle Association, or any other recognized certified instructor."
 
To me, the above text leaves room for variation as long as the above items are satisfied as a result. Those of us pushing for uniformity or further clarity in the absence of that from the state, might just force the state to answer your quarry to the chagrin of us all. For now, just chill and let those of us who are applying now be your test case. Wait a few months and then apply when things settle. In the meantime do your own research and decide your next move based on the best available information. That will require that you thoroughly read the information that has been made available. If you feel that the risk isn't worth it then wait. At this point almost everything is conjecture because the state has not communicated anything outside of the AG's statement and what is actually contained on the NJSP website: https://nj.gov/njsp/firearms/forms.shtml.
 
 

Share this post


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

The qual. test at RTSP vs GFH is not the same standard for example and not close to HQC 1.......what is everyone spending their $$$$$ on, I need to know, I'm an imbecile, please help....Thanks..

Just relax.  Stop with the imbecile and dumb stuff.

We're all in the same boat trying to figure things out.

RTSP and GFH aren't trying to rip anyone off or make a quick buck.  They've been doing Quals for YEARS, so they're doing the the way they've always done so (as approved by the state).  It's fine that you feel the only acceptable Qual is HQC 1, but places have been using other standards for years.

I suspect both RTSP and GFH would work with people who get rejected and try to make it right.

There are people who want to apply NOW, so those places are accommodating them to the best of their ability.  The disclaimers are there just in case those efforts run into hurdles.

I applaud the people who are taking the leap and being the first in line for this, but i suspect NJ will try to throw some curveballs, so I'm going to take a breath and wait a tick or two.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does a civilian need to meet the same requirements as a LEO? Florida for example accepts NRA Basic pistol and many other less costly, simpler ways. https://www.fdacs.gov/Consumer-Resources/Concealed-Weapon-License/Applying-for-a-Concealed-Weapon-License/Acceptable-Firearms-Training-Documentat 

Our 2A rights were denied us many years but we may be willing to  accept requirements exceeding most states.  The NJ standard  assumed to show the applicant is "thoroughly familiar with the use and safe handling of the handgun"  by  completion of a firearms training course substantially equivalent to the firearms training approved by the Police Training Commission as described by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6.  

Why do we need to meet this standard when most of the USA does not?  If we accept it now (and the new requirements for references), we will be forced to give up our constitutional rights that were won after a long fight.  Once we give them back we will not get them again.  

Let us err on the side of reason now that the US Supreme Court is behind us.  

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like all the horses are out of the starting gate. But how long is the track, and where's the finish line? 

No one knows.

Look, I know I'm calm about all this because I have one foot in PA and my LTCF. So all the steam was let out of my kettle. But really, since you've (we've) waited this long, pausing another couple months to let this settle in, get some definitive word on what matters and what doesn't, and find out what crap Murphy and the Democrats are going to use to try to circumvent the ruling isn't a jawbreaker.

And it might save a lot of wasted motion. Not to mention money.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 45Doll said:

Looks like all the horses are out of the starting gate. But how long is the track, and where's the finish line? 

No one knows.

Look, I know I'm calm about all this because I have one foot in PA and my LTCF. So all the steam was let out of my kettle. But really, since you've (we've) waited this long, pausing another couple months to let this settle in, get some definitive word on what matters and what doesn't, and find out what crap Murphy and the Democrats are going to use to try to circumvent the ruling isn't a jawbreaker.

And it might save a lot of wasted motion. Not to mention money.

My perspective is different. I don't see any reason to allow time for the people who have shat on us for decades to come up with new and innovative ways to shit on us some more. Are they going to anyway? Sure. But I'm not hanging around waiting for them.

My app is in and I'm going to do all I can to get my permit under the rules as they stand.

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I personally believe the ranges are doing their best to provide a service to the market, with enough disclaimers. I also believe ranges are doing their own things close to the way they did their NJ RPO quals.

2. In their true spirit, NJ will throw roadblocks and sh*t at applicants. Qual standards will be least of our problems. Apply now or apply later doesnt make much difference in that aspect. They will throw sh*t regardless.

3. The application process as of now is as clear as any other time now or in future. Individuals can make decisions as to apply now or wait.

4. Link to NJ Division Of Criminal Justice Semi-Annual Firearms Qual.  Starting page 9-74, there are summary of different quals. HQC-1/2 at 60/50 rounds respectively involving 25 yards.  There is also a RPO qual with 40 rounds with max 15 yards.  Hence different ranges picking different quals.

https://nj.gov/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

the disclaimer only appeared after the fact......he must be gettin' phone calls from those who have already taken the test and paid as they all must be......just coverin' his ass I guess......I dunno, I'm dumb.

Yes you seem to make it a habit of ragging on GFH.  You should go find another website to play on.

Share this post


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

My app is in and I'm going to do all I can to get my permit under the rules as they stand.

In which case I wish you and all the others who want to try success.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CJack said:

1. I personally believe the ranges are doing their best to provide a service to the market, with enough disclaimers. I also believe ranges are doing their own things close to the way they did their NJ RPO quals.

2. In their true spirit, NJ will throw roadblocks and sh*t at applicants. Qual standards will be least of our problems. Apply now or apply later doesnt make much difference in that aspect. They will throw sh*t regardless.

3. The application process as of now is as clear as any other time now or in future. Individuals can make decisions as to apply now or wait.

4. Link to NJ Division Of Criminal Justice Semi-Annual Firearms Qual.  Starting page 9-74, there are summary of different quals. HQC-1/2 at 60/50 rounds respectively involving 25 yards.  There is also a RPO qual with 40 rounds with max 15 yards.  Hence different ranges picking different quals.

https://nj.gov/lps/dcj/pdfs/dcj-firearms.pdf

Really appreciate your post and especially the link.  (Fwiw, I did verify to my own satisfaction that the 6/26/2003 document is still the latest.)

I too have found the differing range CCW quals disconcerting as I plan my own way forward.    

To me, the existence of the RPO Qual on page 7-79 strongly suggests that the RPO Qual would represent the most stringent qualification that the state would require, as opposed the the HQC1/2 police officer quals.  Ie if the RPO qual has been the standard for RPOs all these years, one would think that it would be more than acceptable for the average citizen seeking his/her CCW.

The RPO Qual strikes me as being challenging yet achievable for the average citizen who is proficient with their handgun.  Neither RTSP nor GFH's quals exactly match the RPO one, but RTSP's seems to more closely match it. (e.g. holster draw, 15 yds max, etc.). Not sure whether RTSP's quals are timed or not. Anyone know?

Bottomline for me is that I think I will practice the RPO quals at the range, and then take the Intro class(hey why not)and quals at RTSP.

p.s. I have even seen some facilities requiring HQC variants as the CCW quals.  Not sure why anyone would require anything more stringent than the RPO.

 

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...