Most Carry Qualification Requirements Erased 9-17-23

[CMJeepster 2,778]

53 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

i think that gunforhire is probably our best source for now. he's not gonna fearmonger anyone

The Gun For Hire Radio Broadcast: Episode 636 - Best Gun Range NYC and NJ Area | Gun Range Near Me

[xXxplosive 824]

5 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

i think that gunforhire is probably our best source for now. he's not gonna fearmonger anyone

yeah....only your wallet....omo.

[Tunaman 552]

3 hours ago, xXxplosive said:

yeah....only your wallet....omo.

Listen to the podcast and LEARN some things.  300 grand for insurance NOW...without people drawing from holsters.  I am sure Anthony and Matt are patiently awaiting their insurance adjuster to follow up on these new quals.  I bet is it going to be a 1/2 a million a year before its all over.  Not easy or cheap to run a gun range.  Nobody ever said this sport was cheap.

[ESB 247]

On 7/23/2023 at 5:12 PM, JackDaWack said:

Cite. The. Law. 

What does the law say I have to do to retain my license? I can't find where it says I am required to meet state qualifications. Qualifications are required by statute to obtain or renew a license... not retain. 

New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:58-4 (2022) - Permits to carry handguns. :: 2022 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

2C:58-4 Permits to carry handguns.

f. Revocation of permits. Any permit issued under this section shall be void at the time the holder thereof becomes subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, and the holder of a void permit shall immediately surrender the permit to the superintendent who shall give notice to the licensing authority. Any permit may be revoked by the Superior Court, after hearing upon notice to the holder, if the court finds that the holder is no longer qualified for the issuance of a permit. The county prosecutor of any county, the chief police officer of any municipality, the superintendent, or any citizen may apply to the court at any time for the revocation of any permit issued pursuant to this section.

g. Training requirement. (1) On or prior to the first day of the seventh month following the enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.), the superintendent shall establish training requirements in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms, which shall consist of an online course of instruction, in-person classroom instruction, and target training administered by a certified firearm instructor on a firing range approved by the superintendent and on the list of approved ranges published on the State Police website. The training shall include, but not be limited to, demonstration of a level of proficiency in the use of a handgun in such manner as required by the superintendent and training, developed or approved in conjunction with the Police Training Commission, on justification in the use of deadly force under State law.

(2) A person who obtained a permit pursuant to this section prior to the first day of the seventh month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) and which permit is not scheduled to expire until at least one year following the enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) shall comply with the training requirement established pursuant to this subsection no later than the first day of the tenth month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.).

 

 

[xXxplosive 824]

so what is #2...a blanket statement...we complied with HQC1, shot the COF and our instructor is both NRA and NJSP certified and is on the NJSP list....now who is doing the notifiying that all these permits are void..

[ESB 247]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:48 AM, xXxplosive said:

so what is #2...a blanket statement...we complied with HQC1, shot the COF and our instructor is both NRA and NJSP certified and is on the NJSP list....now who is doing the notifiying that all these permits are void..

If you want to get technical, #2 says we need to comply with #1.  #1 says that on or BEFORE July 1st the superintendent shall establish training requirements.  As of July 1st, the new training requirements had not been made.  The old training requirements where in effect on July 1st.  The same ones we all qualified under.  So technically we all qualified under the requirements that were in effect on July 1st per #1, which should satisfy #2.    Of course, you will need you will have to go to court to argue this, paying a lawyer significantly more than what it would cost to do your updated qual, and as had been mentioned before, there is no guarantee a judge would care that you found a loophole and could find you guilty anyway.  

 

I would go and qualify with whatever gun is easiest and be done with it.  The new law also says one permit is good for all guns you own.  IMNAL though.  

[Ringwoodfrank 24]

If I have to qualify like a retired LEO, will I be allowed to carry like a retired LEO?  Will I be able to transfer firearms with other LEO’s? 
When will this lunacy end?

[JohnnyB 4,326]

1 hour ago, Ringwoodfrank said:

If I have to qualify like a retired LEO, will I be allowed to carry like a retired LEO?  Will I be able to transfer firearms with other LEO’s? 
When will this lunacy end?

NEVER!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 7/31/2023 at 9:03 PM, ESB said:

New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2C:58-4 (2022) - Permits to carry handguns. :: 2022 New Jersey Revised Statutes :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia

2C:58-4 Permits to carry handguns.

f. Revocation of permits. Any permit issued under this section shall be void at the time the holder thereof becomes subject to any of the disabilities set forth in subsection c. of N.J.S.2C:58-3, and the holder of a void permit shall immediately surrender the permit to the superintendent who shall give notice to the licensing authority. Any permit may be revoked by the Superior Court, after hearing upon notice to the holder, if the court finds that the holder is no longer qualified for the issuance of a permit. The county prosecutor of any county, the chief police officer of any municipality, the superintendent, or any citizen may apply to the court at any time for the revocation of any permit issued pursuant to this section.

g. Training requirement. (1) On or prior to the first day of the seventh month following the enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.), the superintendent shall establish training requirements in the lawful and safe handling and storage of firearms, which shall consist of an online course of instruction, in-person classroom instruction, and target training administered by a certified firearm instructor on a firing range approved by the superintendent and on the list of approved ranges published on the State Police website. The training shall include, but not be limited to, demonstration of a level of proficiency in the use of a handgun in such manner as required by the superintendent and training, developed or approved in conjunction with the Police Training Commission, on justification in the use of deadly force under State law.

(2) A person who obtained a permit pursuant to this section prior to the first day of the seventh month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) and which permit is not scheduled to expire until at least one year following the enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.) shall comply with the training requirement established pursuant to this subsection no later than the first day of the tenth month following the date of enactment of P.L.2022, c.131 (C.2C:58-4.2 et al.).

 

 

Hard to have obtained one under this section when it didn't exist. 

[xXxplosive 824]

20 hours ago, ESB said:

If you want to get technical, #2 says we need to comply with #1.  #1 says that on or BEFORE July 1st the superintendent shall establish training requirements.  As of July 1st, the new training requirements had not been made.  The old training requirements where in effect on July 1st.  The same ones we all qualified under.  So technically we all qualified under the requirements that were in effect on July 1st per #1, which should satisfy #2.    Of course, you will need you will have to go to court to argue this, paying a lawyer significantly more than what it would cost to do your updated qual, and as had been mentioned before, there is no guarantee a judge would care that you found a loophole and could find you guilty anyway.  

 

I would go and qualify with whatever gun is easiest and be done with it.  The new law also says one permit is good for all guns you own.

How about if all the thousands of permit holders in the state that complied and took courses......just say no.....omo.

[dilbert1967 146]

20 hours ago, ESB said:

If you want to get technical, #2 says we need to comply with #1.  #1 says that on or BEFORE July 1st the superintendent shall establish training requirements.  As of July 1st, the new training requirements had not been made.  The old training requirements where in effect on July 1st.  The same ones we all qualified under.  So technically we all qualified under the requirements that were in effect on July 1st per #1, which should satisfy #2.    Of course, you will need you will have to go to court to argue this, paying a lawyer significantly more than what it would cost to do your updated qual, and as had been mentioned before, there is no guarantee a judge would care that you found a loophole and could find you guilty anyway.  

 

I would go and qualify with whatever gun is easiest and be done with it.  The new law also says one permit is good for all guns you own.

That's true, however, they also state on the form that you list all of the firearms intend to carry, by serial number.  Heck, they already have that information in my case.

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

47 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Hard to have obtained one under this section when it didn't exist. 

2C:58-4 has existed for years. That is the section that described what we had to do prior to 12/22/2022. A4769 only modified that section. It did not create it.

[ESB 247]

The Qual documentation that came out on 7/18 said it was interim.  Is that still the case?  Has the finalized qual been published yet?  Would hate to re-do my qual under the new "interim" standards, only to have to re-do the qual again when the qual standards are slightly revised and finalized.  

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

On 8/2/2023 at 8:36 AM, dilbert1967 said:

That's true, however, they also state on the form that you list all of the firearms intend to carry, by serial number.  Heck, they already have that information in my case.

And what kind of after-the-fact legal force does such a declaration of "intent" wield? I would think none at all. Otherwise the wording would clearly state that the permit-holder is limited to carry only those firearms listed, intent be damned. More than likely that was some legislative aide imbecile's wet-dream attempt to skate the periphery of some mistaken idea of what is permissible under the Bruen historical consistency requirement.

[Grima Squeakersen 482]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:03 AM, Mr.Stu said:

2C:58-4 has existed for years. That is the section that described what we had to do prior to 12/22/2022. A4769 only modified that section. It did not create it.

So, in NJ, "ex post facto" applies only if a new law gets a new code section designation?

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

3 minutes ago, Grima Squeakersen said:

So, in NJ, "ex post facto" applies only if a new law gets a new code section designation?

That's a different argument. Ignoring what is actually written won't get anyone very far when challenging it on ex post facto grounds.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Just watched a short video from Washington Gun Law on The State That Will Only Give a Carry License to John Wick. 

Anyone care to guess what state he's talking about?  Yes, it's our very own beloved Garden State.  He says that the test is so difficult that only a small number of people are going to be able to pass it.

 

[Mrs. Peel 7,157]

Isn't it sad when your new laws are so egregious, that even people on the other coast are making videos about them? Meanwhile, actual criminals don't need to post bail and are put right back on the street. Disgusting!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 8/2/2023 at 9:03 AM, Mr.Stu said:

2C:58-4 has existed for years. That is the section that described what we had to do prior to 12/22/2022. A4769 only modified that section. It did not create 0ff u

  I did not apply under "this section", as it was legislatively amended after the fact.

I did not get my permit under the current (Dec 2022 rev.) 2c:58-4, that's the entire point of ex post facto. You can't change any part of a law and have it apply retroactively. It makes no difference if it's adding or amending sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs or clauses. A section is not simply defined by its nomenclature, it's inclusive of everything found within it. By your standards, the legislator could just change sections to anything they want and claim they always existed...

That's not even a different argument, it's the entire argument.

 

[JackDaWack 2,895]

On 8/4/2023 at 3:14 PM, Mr.Stu said:

That's a different argument. Ignoring what is actually written won't get anyone very far when challenging it on ex post facto grounds.

When you applied, per statue, and were granted a licenses prior to Dec 2022, you fulfilled all the requirements to obtain and retain a license for 2 years. 

Why would I or anyone else look at the post Dec 2022 law and believe we applied under it when it's amendments didn't exist? 

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

3 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

When you applied, per statue, and were granted a licenses prior to Dec 2022, you fulfilled all the requirements to obtain and retain a license for 2 years. 

Why would I or anyone else look at the post Dec 2022 law and beleive we applied under it when it's ammendments didn't exist? 

Does that mean none of the "sensitive places" apply to me either because when I got my permit it was valid in all parts of the state except schools?

[JohnnyB 4,326]

1 minute ago, JackDaWack said:

When you applied, per statue, and were granted a licenses prior to Dec 2022, you fulfilled all the requirements to obtain and retain a license for 2 years. 

Why would I or anyone else look at the post Dec 2022 law and beleive we applied under it when it's ammendments didn't exist? 

I believe the courts will throw these new requirements in the unconstitutional trash bin!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Does that mean none of the "sensitive places" apply to me either because when I got my permit it was valid in all parts of the state except schools?

Not sure you get this principle. 

If you were in a sensitive place with a gun prior to Dec 2022, that wasn't sensitive, you can't be charged. 

I fulfilled all the licensing requirements at the time, per statute. It's literally post defacto to change the law and then say I didn't. 

[ESB 247]

16 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Not sure you get this principle. 

If you were in a sensitive place with a gun prior to Dec 2022, that wasn't sensitive, you can't be charged. 

I fulfilled all the licensing requirements at the time, per statute. It's literally post defacto to change the law and then say I didn't. 

You are probably right.  You would probably have to pay a lawyer some decent money to prove that you are right.  

[Mr.Stu 1,922]

35 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

When you applied, per statue, and were granted a licenses prior to Dec 2022, you fulfilled all the requirements to obtain and retain a license for 2 years. 

Why would I or anyone else look at the post Dec 2022 law and believe we applied under it when it's amendments didn't exist? 

Just curious..what statute did you apply under? I applied under 2C:58-4.

 

On 8/2/2023 at 8:15 AM, JackDaWack said:

Hard to have obtained one under this section when it didn't exist. 

I am not claiming the changes are not ex post facto, but to claim the section didn't exist makes no sense.

[JohnnyB 4,326]

I just reached out to the guy who certified me on June 3rd. He said I am good to go as the course of fire and instruction he gave us meets the new requirements.  He said if anyone questions it, have them call him directly on his cell phone! Good! One less thing to worry about!

[ESB 247]

If you did not shoot out to 25yards, I'm not sure how they could say that course of fire met the new requirements. 

That said, I don't know how any officer would be able to tell which permit holders had already met the new requirements when they first applied, know who re-did their quals with the updated standard, and which permit holders did not do a qual that meets the new standards.   Are they issuing (re-issuing) new permits that look different now?  

[JackDaWack 2,895]

24 minutes ago, Mr.Stu said:

Just curious..what statute did you apply under? I applied under 2C:58-4.

 

I am not claiming the changes are not ex post facto, but to claim the section didn't exist makes no sense.

The section, as it is written..  Did not exist.  Really not that hard to understand.

The law doesn't apply nomenclature in this respect, 2c:58-4 is simply a penal code. I clearly applied under a different statute.

21 minutes ago, JohnnyB said:

I just reached out to the guy who certified me on June 3rd. He said I am good to go as the course of fire and instruction he gave us meets the new requirements.  He said if anyone questions it, have them call him directly on his cell phone! Good! One less thing to worry about!

AFAIK, GFH stated no one who took their course pre Dec 2022 needs to requalify. 

They also said the same thing for post 2022, but they then required a holster draw out to 25yards. 

[JohnnyB 4,326]

7 minutes ago, ESB said:

If you did not shoot out to 25yards, I'm not sure how they could say that course of fire met the new requirements. 

That said, I don't know how any officer would be able to tell which permit holders had already met the new requirements when they first applied, know who re-did their quals with the updated standard, and which permit holders did not do a qual that meets the new standards.   Are they issuing (re-issuing) new permits that look different now?  

I am certain that nobody will question my instructor's word since he most likely authored the new requirements!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

1 minute ago, JohnnyB said:

I am certain that nobody will question my instructor's word since he most likely authored the new requirements!

Can we question his level of dickheadedness?