NJ LAWMAKERS ANNOUNCE PLANS TO DESTROY RIGHT TO CARRY

[1LtCAP 4,264]

when does it get to them? or when is their decision supposed to come down? how many of them have skeletons that bucktooth may be exploiting?

 

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

On the latest GunForHire Podcast, Anthony read a "memo" that Scott Bach wrote to Governor Murphy.  I haven't been able to find it online anywhere, so did my best to transcribe it:

 

Quote

Scott Bach, Executive director of ANJRPC, NRA Board Member

Memo to NJ Governor Murphy

June 2023

You are supposed to be a public servant, not the public's master, yet your actions towards honest gun owners reveal you think otherwise.  But the U.S. Constitution isn't optional for you. It limits and restrains you, even if you had the hubris to believe that your own personal preferences should replace the divinely inspired wisdom of the founding fathers.  

You are not the people's overlord. You have been given the public's trust and you have betrayed that trust. You have actively tried to destroy a fundamental civil right explicitly protected in our constitution, therefore abusing your power as a public servant. You are neither smarter than the founding fathers nor exempt from the limits they imposed on you, and now your own arrogance boomerangs back on you.

When the Supreme Court ruled last June that should have signaled to you that it was time for honest self-examination and deep introspection about the course you have been following and why you have been following it. Instead you reacted irrationally with reflective adolescent defiance and refusal to accept reality, and now you are beginning to reap the consequences of your chosen course as the first of many humiliating legal defeats reveals you as a petty tyrant instead of a wise and resilient governor.

Every leader makes mistakes. The wise ones admit their mistakes and learn from them. Fools continue to shake angry, defiant fists as a tidal wave of justice overwhelms them and leaves them utterly humiliated when the waters recede.

You have two choices from here Governor: You can continue your temper tantrum against freedom and continue to drown in embarrassing defeat as you are swamped by a legal tide that cannot be stopped, or you can honestly and soberly examine your past actions, see the writing on the wall and make the needed course correction to align with reality and righteousness.

Only one of these choices demonstrates the qualities necessary to earn the higher national office to which you aspire.

Whichever you choose, know that nothing will stop honest gun owners from reestablishing their god-given liberties right under your nose. The Second Amendment freight train can not be stopped and will overwhelm anyone who tries.

It is your choice whether you continue to suffer humiliating public defeats meted out by your own constituents.

Choose wisely.

 

[Fawkesguy 57]

I wish he were that eloquent in the courtroom.

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

I heard through a friend who was at an ATF seminar this week and NJSP did a very quick heads-up on what's coming in July.

This is what he reported was said:

1. The qualification course will be the NJ HQC1 (including the 25 yard line phase).
2. The application will be an online application including an online safety training component.
3. A basic pistol course will be required (NRA will suffice).
4. Use of Force instruction will be required.
5. Anyone who has received their CCW permit, but hasn't qualified on the HQC1 course will have to do so by October (the issuing municipality will notify them of the need to do so).

No more details than that right now. Don't get upset with me - I'm just passing on what I heard.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

soooo...they're being allowed to move the goal posts......

[1LtCAP 4,264]

that said...i just looked up that course of fire. i think that's the one i shot with i qualified with my beretta//////

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

44 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

soooo...they're being allowed to move the goal posts......

Once the new rules are published officially, the lawyers are going to challenge them. I suspect they won't get very far. Places like Florida already require proof of training.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

23 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Once the new rules are published officially, the lawyers are going to challenge them. I suspect they won't get very far. Places like Florida already require proof of training.

which virtually everyone that's recently gotten their ccw has provided......

[JohnnyB 4,326]

21 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Once the new rules are published officially, the lawyers are going to challenge them. I suspect they won't get very far. Places like Florida already require proof of training.

Huge difference!  Florida require a hunter's education course or a DD-214 or just about any training. No live fire and No requalification EVER!  We are not active duty law enforcement and we should not be held responsible to qualify at that level of proficiency!

THIS IS BULLSHIT and FPM!

[EngineerJet 191]

I hope I am wrong, but I do not see the training requirement being struck down. We can argue there was no such requirement back during the founding, but I believe if a state decides to make training a requirement, it wont be overturned.

[siderman 1,138]

19 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

Huge difference!  Florida require a hunter's education course or a DD-214 or just about any training. No live fire and No requalification EVER!  We are not active duty law enforcement and we should not be held responsible to qualify at that level of proficiency!

THIS IS BULLSHIT and FPM!

They also took a tattered NRA pro marksman cert from way back when I was a teenager in the 70's

[1LtCAP 4,264]

23 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

I hope I am wrong, but I do not see the training requirement being struck down. We can argue there was no such requirement back during the founding, but I believe if a state decides to make training a requirement, it wont be overturned.

and that is fine. but again.....those of us who've recently gotten our ccw's have shown proof of qualification including live fire.

 

 also, i just verified with the instructor i took my quals with......it was the hqc1. and they'd given us 1.5 hour course on use of force......

[njJoniGuy 2,131]

HCQ1 from https://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/agguide/firearms_2003final.pdf

(5 pages)

 

HCQ1 firearms qualifications [PFP#841090829].pdf

[dilbert1967 146]

2 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

I heard through a friend who was at an ATF seminar this week and NJSP did a very quick heads-up on what's coming in July.

This is what he reported was said:

1. The qualification course will be the NJ HQC1 (including the 25 yard line phase).
2. The application will be an online application including an online safety training component.
3. A basic pistol course will be required (NRA will suffice).
4. Use of Force instruction will be required.
5. Anyone who has received their CCW permit, but hasn't qualified on the HQC1 course will have to do so by October (the issuing municipality will notify them of the need to do so).

No more details than that right now. Don't get upset with me - I'm just passing on what I heard.

If I were to apply for a permit, I would have to train hard to hit targets at 25 yards consistently.  I can think of few situations where I would engage an aggressor at that distance.  Maybe a family member somehow got between me and the shooter, then I'd be forced to run toward the family member (and the shooter) to assist them to safety?  I think they should have left the requirement at 15 yards.

 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

2 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

If I were to apply for a permit, I would have to train hard to hit targets at 25 yards consistently.  I can think of few situations where I would engage an aggressor at that distance.  Maybe a family member somehow got between me and the shooter, then I'd be forced to run toward the family member (and the shooter) to assist them to safety?  I think they should have left the requirement at 15 yards.

 

Hitting a 12 inch wide target at 25 yards is really not that hard with a reasonable grasp of the fundamentals. You have a minute and a half to get those 12 shots off - effectively an eternity.

Additionally, only 12 of the 60 rounds are from 25 yards. All the rest are 15 yards and closer. If you run the math, those 12 rounds can be your 20% that you miss and you still make the 80% threshold. If you miss all 12 at 25 yards, you'd have to be really unlucky, or really need some instruction.

[EngineerJet 191]

23 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

and that is fine. but again.....those of us who've recently gotten our ccw's have shown proof of qualification including live fire.

 

 also, i just verified with the instructor i took my quals with......it was the hqc1. and they'd given us 1.5 hour course on use of force......

My guess is, if you qualed with HQC1 initially and still have a copy of that qual, you can always try showing that to your PD and see if theyll just give you the thumbs up. With the authority being more localized, it appears the local PD may have more leeway in how they handle it. For example, some PD's require you to reapply if you have a court order and want a non-restricted permit, other PD's will just reissue you a permit without having to go through the red tape all over again. If you have proof of HQC1, it doesnt hurt to try.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

15 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

If I were to apply for a permit, I would have to train hard to hit targets at 25 yards consistently.  I can think of few situations where I would engage an aggressor at that distance.  Maybe a family member somehow got between me and the shooter, then I'd be forced to run toward the family member (and the shooter) to assist them to safety?  I think they should have left the requirement at 15 yards.

 

when i shot that course with my beretta, i hit 59 outta 60. the one i missed was at 15 yards. at 25, don't forget that you've got support there....you can lean on the "cover" for support.

[xXxplosive 824]

Imo....if you have to defend yourself at 25yds. in this state....the BG better be shootin' a rifle.....also the average joe excercising his 2A rights is not shooting from behind barracades, kneeling, etc. some who I know weren't even made to shoot strong hand, weak hand at testing.....many more will fail and some will not be able to renew and that's what they're hoping for.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

3 minutes ago, EngineerJet said:

My guess is, if you qualed with HQC1 initially and still have a copy of that qual, you can always try showing that to your PD and see if theyll just give you the thumbs up. With the authority being more localized, it appears the local PD may have more leeway in how they handle it. For example, some PD's require you to reapply if you have a court order and want a non-restricted permit, other PD's will just reissue you a permit without having to go through the red tape all over again. If you have proof of HQC1, it doesnt hurt to try.

just went and checked my folder. it was hqc2. that's not gonna cut it, is it?

although upon talking to him, he thought it was 1. and the pd has our copies of our quals. we had to turn in copies i believe.

[EngineerJet 191]

What if like to know is, will my PD accept an hqc1 signed off by an NRA instructor... For reasons

[xXxplosive 824]

....we're all concerned about qualifying tests here when we should be more concerned about our 2A rights being violated.....omo.

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, EngineerJet said:

I hope I am wrong, but I do not see the training requirement being struck down. We can argue there was no such requirement back during the founding, but I believe if a state decides to make training a requirement, it wont be overturned.

Agreed. The “ well regulated “ part meant training in 1790s. As long it’s not more than a police officer , it’s not an issue with exception of physical movement like kneeling. It’s not that hard of a standard.

[xXxplosive 824]

13 minutes ago, Walkinguf61 said:

Agreed. The “ well regulated “ part meant training in 1790s. As long it’s not more than a police officer , it’s not an issue with exception of physical movement like kneeling. It’s not that hard of a standard.

How do you know that, were you there.....your just assuming that's what it meant....regulated, last time I looked up the word had many meanings......it actually has nothing to do with arms training but behavior towards commanding officers by enlisted men....see 1779.

[EngineerJet 191]

10 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

....we're all concerned about qualifying tests here when we should be more concerned about our 2A rights being violated.....omo.

Not to be a dick, but concern for our 2A rights is constant, but that doesn't mean everything else takes a backseat. The concern for training will ensure we can carry in the immediate future and defend ourselves in the present.

In addition, what can be done is currently working its way through the courts and there is nothing else we can do aside from bringing more lawsuits. Let's be laser focused with one issue at a time as most litigators would likely agree.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

i'm pretty sure that the "well regulated" part had nothing to do with training, but rather keeping your equipment in good working order.

1 minute ago, EngineerJet said:

Not to be a dick, but concern for our 2A rights is constant, but that doesn't mean everything else takes a backseat. The concern for training will ensure we can carry in the immediate future and defend ourselves in the present.

In addition, what can be done is currently working its way through the courts and there is nothing else we can do aside from bringing more lawsuits. Let's be laser focused with one issue at a time as most litigators would likely agree.

that will ensure none of that in this state. if they can find a way to deny us, they will. as evidenced by their moving of the goal posts right now.

[xXxplosive 824]

Training is something that was conjured up by the left to make their point and you all stepped right into it........not in the Bill Of Rights....omo.

[EngineerJet 191]

3 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

How do you know that, were you there.....your just assuming that's what it meant....regulated, last time I looked up the word had many meanings......

According to heritage.org,

A “well-regulated” militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.

This is what is considered what was meant at the time of the founding. So its not unlikely that the conservative justices, which rely on the original meaning or the constitution, could possible agree with the training aspect. Now I don't have a crystal ball, but thats how it can be argued.

[xXxplosive 824]

training could be marching drills on the field, taking orders and behavior of enlisted men towards their commanding officers (see 1779).......not something you just assumed.

 

and this.......

 

[Walkinguf61 40]

1 hour ago, xXxplosive said:

How do you know that, were you there.....your just assuming that's what it meant....regulated, last time I looked up the word had many meanings......it actually has nothing to do with arms training but behavior towards commanding officers by enlisted men....see 1779.

It meant that too. I am basing my opinion from Scilica’s opinion of the meaning of the words from watching many interviews with him on the subject.

Were the militia as it was defined then required to gather for training ? The answer is yes. 
The type of training isn’t limited to what they did back then . Muskets weren’t marksmanship weapons. 
 

As long as the training maximum is to minimum that of an armed agent of the state directly related to that firearm and realistic purpose, what’s the issue? I have to pass the minimum police firearm standard each year. An 80 year old retired cop was next to me on the firing line ( it’s NY standards) and we both passed. The only issue I have with the NJ standard is the kneeling or standing requirement. What if you are in a wheelchair? 

[xXxplosive 824]

was Scilia there too..................all conjecture that most have adopted because we were told to do so, just like everything else we're told to do............read minutes 1779....the only so called "crack shots" were Morgan's Rifle Co. and they didn't do much in the way of training.......they were natural hunters and farmers that brought meat to the dinner table to feed their families before enlisting.