Jump to content
AnthonyG

N.J. senator pushes law to carry handguns

Recommended Posts

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. While one shouldn't need to have a permit for a right, I understand the need to have identification so LE can identify the law-abiding people who carry.

 

With that being said, I would refuse to pay $500 a year-- not due to financial constraints, but because it is an INSULT to suggest that I must pay for anything more than the administrative costs to process the application. I'd rather go unarmed.

 

Yup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Van Drew said the $500 annual fee — up from $20 every two years — would mean "tens of millions" of dollars in new state revenue. To reach the $10 million mark, 20,000 people would have to shell out the $500.

 

20,000 people would have to pay that amount to reach tens of millions in revenue , ummm not really sure if that many people would be willing to pony up that much money annually !!

 

Well there are 1200 out there now..... Once you add in the Armed guards (Remember that Nj doesnt differentiate statutorily between TYPES of carry permit), and the Retired Cops (Even with LEOSA, according to the Nj AG we still have to have an NJ carry permit to carry HERE) you may actually get close to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest megaman

Let it pass! Its about time. I will pay the $500 then sue to say its excessive...NJ will be getting sued over this and they need to get infront of this. We will be part of reversing 74 years of hypocracy in this state.

Lets get it passed!!!

The only people pissed are liberals and cops. Laws change, time rolls forward.

Federalism is a beautiful thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, having a different opinion than you makes one not know or understand the constitution? And who said anything about justifying the bill? I disagree with the price point like everyone else, but what other choice does one have right now if one wishes to carry? Move to another state? Change careers and go into law enforcement/security? I would like to know the answer. How are you able to carry?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Van Drew said he based his bill (S2264) loosely on laws in nearby states such as Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

 

That's the first time I saw that line. I don't see ANYTHING in this bill that resembles PA laws.

 

If he were a real friend of the cause he would propose a bill to simply eliminate the bold below from current law:

 

d. Issuance by Superior Court; fee. If the application has been approved by the chief police officer or the superintendent, as the case may be, the applicant shall forthwith present it to the Superior Court of the county in which the applicant resides, or to the Superior Court in any county where he intends to carry a handgun, in the case of a nonresident or employee of an armored car company. 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 section 2C:58-3c., that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun. 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 such handguns may be carried. At the time of issuance, the applicant shall pay to the county clerk of the county where the permit was issued a permit fee of $20.00.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is bullsh*t anyway , does anyone actually even think theres a chance in hell this will ever even be heard , this state is so anti gun and a little ole senator from south jersey isnt gonna change that ..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way, this kind of reminds me of an old Jewish joke that was made famous in Annie Hall.

 

Two Jewish women were at a Catskill resort eating dinner.

One woman says:

"The food is horrible here."

And the other woman says:

"I know, and what small portions."

 

We're kvetching like yentas here. Let's look on the bright side.

 

This is a victory. These are baby steps. This is the first time we're been fed in years and we are complaining about the taste and portions and the price. The Senator's bill has to get out of committee first. Then it has to pass, then it has to be signed (something I think out Governor would do - he is a very pragmatic and sensible man).

 

This law could change some things for the better. Sooner or later (under pressure from minority business owners, the Pink Pistols, or a group of women who have been stalked), the prices and requirements will go down.

 

Let's concentrate on a victory first.

 

-Bether

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing is bullsh*t anyway , does anyone actually even think theres a chance in hell this will ever even be heard , this state is so anti gun and a little ole senator from south jersey isnt gonna change that ..

 

Yes, me. With SAF challenging "justifiable need" in NY and MD, I think it will be heard for the sole purpose of removing the "justifiable need" component in NJ and replacing it with the prohibitive structure proposed by Van Drew. It's a brilliant tactical move by a desperate group.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, me. With SAF challenging "justifiable need" in NY and MD, I think it will be heard for the sole purpose of removing the "justifiable need" component in NJ and replacing it with the prohibitive structure proposed by Van Drew. It's a brilliant tactical move by a desperate group.

Never underestimate the Backdoor Gamesmanship of a NJ Politician. Sneaky little SOB's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Senator Van Drew, for whatever reason, is kowtowing to the pro-gun forces of darkness who want to turn this country into an armed society," said Bryan Miller, executive director of Ceasefire NJ. "It’s very simple: Do we want to be standing in line at a grocery store, at a movie theater, sitting next to someone in a church or anywhere else not knowing whether that person is legally carrying a handgun?"

 

Wow! I had no idea I was part of "the forces of Darkness"! We stand in line with armed people every day. We just don't know it! Hence the term concealed carry. I've been in Home Depot and seen holsters with Glocks in them. Hell my brother in law, a Paterson cop, used to drop his chief's special in his back pocket just to go buy beer.

 

Another officer I know told me a story about a cop who forgot his holster and walked down the street in Camden with his H&K duty weapon in his hand, and nobody even flinched.

 

So, let me get this straight. If you carry a weapon without the permit, you get 5 years. But for $500 and some other bull s***, your're good to go. Sometimes I think it would almost be worth divorcing my wife,(she's the one who wants to stay in Jersey) just so can live in Pa. and join the real United States.

 

Liberals are conservatives who haven't been mugged yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder if something isn't happening under the surface at the state legislature. The timing of this announcement seems odd. I received a nice letter about 3 weeks ago from the representatives and state senator in district 24 (I don't know how they found out about my address since I live in district 25) asking me to write a letter to the chairmen of the relevant committees asking them to advance a concealed carry bill.

So I obliged and wrote a very nice thoughtful letter that I imagine was probably used as toliet paper but the timing of this suggests otherwise. Does anyone have any clue as to what might be going on? If anything?

 

I'm not a New Jersey political insider by any means so I have no idea.

 

I'm a businessman and I work in Newark (sometimes late) and as much as I like Mayor Booker his police force can't be everywhere always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do wonder if something isn't happening under the surface at the state legislature. The timing of this announcement seems odd.

 

Legislators are always one year ahead of the citizens of the state.

 

It was reported on here many moons ago, that before the Heller decision was official and the Chicago case was in it's infancy, many firearm owners and legislators knew which way the SC was going to decide and policy makers began back then working on how to handle CCW, because they knew it was only a matter of time, with Heller and Chicago, the composition of the SC, and how the decision was going to go down.

 

New Jersey Assemblypeople and Senators very much know and pay very close attention to the CCW laws of surrounding states and the relaxed carry laws in the south and west regarding bars and sensitive areas.

 

Again, reported here, 90% of New Jersey legislators don't give a rat's a** on whether you carry concealed or not. How many citizens are single issue voters? In this lousy economy people are concerned about being unemployed, losing health care, losing their homes and feeding their children. That's where people will vote.

 

What percentage of a district's constituency would turn out to vote on a single issue? In urban areas? No. Constituents don't want to stop the gravy train and dry up the street money. The districts that have soccer moms will vote no because soccer moms know how to organize, have bake sales and most have little going on their lives. Lets "Do it for the children".

 

They floated this balloon months ago when Senator Cunningham became the primary sponsor of the "New Jersey Self-Defense Law". Didn't anyone find it odd that a gun grabber like Cunningham was a primary sponsor of the bill.

 

The senator received no push-back from anyone in her district. In fact many applauded it.

 

This will get spun in a way where "We need our citizens to be able to protect themselves." "The police can't be everywhere."

 

It is going to be amazing when this bill gets to the governor's desk. I wish I could be with Cryan Miller at each step when the bill moves through the Senate and Assembly committees and through each house. Oh, the look on his sour face! He knows the end is near.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern with all of this is and always will be the "reasonable restrictions" to my rights that the State will claim. I do not agree that Christie will sign this. He put a vehemently anti-gun person in power in the form of Paula Dow and I seriously doubt that he will sign this without hearing her input first.

 

Further, I think the very first MINOR infraction of any CCW will result in a heavy handed jack boot thug reaction in the judicial system (not via the police per se) in order to set a precedent early on. IMO you will see Grandpa Jones hung up in the town square for carrying his weapon one foot too close to a school or some other idiocy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard about this on 1010 Wins on the way to work this morning. They had 3 idiots give sound bites on why they think that no one should be allowed to carry concealed, and one token quote at the end of the story in which someone said everyone should carry guns. I emailed to voice my complaint when I got to work...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not agree that Christie will sign this.

 

Christie will have to sign it if he wants any career in national politics beyond New Jersey whatsoever. If there is one thing the national Republican party can agree on it is the 2nd amendment. A non-2nd amendment friendly Republican would have ZERO chance carrying the south, the west, Texas, etc. It's absurd!

Look what happened to Castle down in Delaware. He had an "F" from the NRA. That hurt him a lot in the GOP primary vs. O'Donnell.

Christie might not be pro-2nd amendment but I'm pretty sure he is pro-Christie. If wants to continue being the national Republican rock star he had better sign the CCW bill if it's placed on his desk.

If he vetoed a CCW bill then he's a fool, and I do not think he is a fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we'll see cc in nj when "me sh!T turns purple and tastes like rainbow sherbert"

 

Even though that is one of the nastiest visions that I can't get out of my head... I think you are correct. This state is azz backwards because of progressive liberalism. The only way they'll do it is if the money they collect would make a DENT in the debt we carry... that's all.

 

Honestly, it is extortion but I would pay it if there were no strings attached, it was "shall issue" and every other year. You can't put a price tag on defending your life.... $500 a year or being dead because there was no way to defend yourself... Gotta' start somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even though that is one of the nastiest visions that I can't get out of my head... I think you are correct. This state is azz backwards because of progressive liberalism. The only way they'll do it is if the money they collect would make a DENT in the debt we carry... that's all.

 

Honestly, it is extortion but I would pay it if there were no strings attached, it was "shall issue" and every other year. You can't put a price tag on defending your life.... $500 a year or being dead because there was no way to defend yourself... Gotta' start somewhere.

 

I say let the bill pass, with the $500 dollar price tag. Then we can fight the price down, act all supporting for now, and then once it's passed we can act all angry about being extorted. To me this option is better then no option, and once the bill is passed, regulations will be made, and im certain the price will drop because like others have stated 500 buck is a lot of money especially in NJ economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie will have to sign it if he wants any career in national politics beyond New Jersey whatsoever. If there is one thing the national Republican party can agree on it is the 2nd amendment. A non-2nd amendment friendly Republican would have ZERO chance carrying the south, the west, Texas, etc. It's absurd!

Look what happened to Castle down in Delaware. He had an "F" from the NRA. That hurt him a lot in the GOP primary vs. O'Donnell.

Christie might not be pro-2nd amendment but I'm pretty sure he is pro-Christie. If wants to continue being the national Republican rock star he had better sign the CCW bill if it's placed on his desk.

If he vetoed a CCW bill then he's a fool, and I do not think he is a fool.

 

Knowing christie, he will be for ccw, he will take no thought on the matter and say i am republican i have to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say let the bill pass, with the $500 dollar price tag. Then we can fight the price down, act all supporting for now, and then once it's passed we can act all angry about being extorted. To me this option is better then no option, and once the bill is passed, regulations will be made, and im certain the price will drop because like others have stated 500 buck is a lot of money especially in NJ economy.

 

I thought about this for a bit, then started to wonder WHY we are paying for a right that is "not to be infringed"? The 1A and 2A go hand in hand and both "complement" each other. So why should we pay for this?

 

Would it make sense to pay $500 to stand in a "free speech" cage and speak your mind once a year along with limitations on what can be said? How about a $500 to be able to cook in your [own] home, then limited to what you are allowed to cook? See, I think this opens a pandora's box of:

-Registration

-Tax

-heavily regulated

-lawyers fees and lawsuits

-Buy insurance (someone mentioned these)

 

For what? Does that sound like more freedom and does it follow "shall not be infringed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christie will have to sign it if he wants any career in national politics beyond New Jersey whatsoever. If there is one thing the national Republican party can agree on it is the 2nd amendment. A non-2nd amendment friendly Republican would have ZERO chance carrying the south, the west, Texas, etc. It's absurd!

Look what happened to Castle down in Delaware. He had an "F" from the NRA. That hurt him a lot in the GOP primary vs. O'Donnell.

Christie might not be pro-2nd amendment but I'm pretty sure he is pro-Christie. If wants to continue being the national Republican rock star he had better sign the CCW bill if it's placed on his desk.

If he vetoed a CCW bill then he's a fool, and I do not think he is a fool.

Obviously this needs to be brought up again so you people understand that HE IS NOT OUR FLIPPING FRIEND

 

Christie1995.jpg

Christie1995001.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems very wrong to exclude people from the process based on economic standing. And at $500 a year that's exactly what this would do.

 

Shameful.

It is shameful, but guess what? Let the folks who can pay to play be the guinea pigs just to get something passed. After we get our foot in the door, that's when you try to let other folks open the door wider. We definitely have to start somewhere, and if money is what it takes, then those who can afford it will have to suck it up for now. Everyone's goal in here is to get CCW, unfortunately, being in NJ means throwing money at it will be part of the solution. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this for a bit, then started to wonder WHY we are paying for a right that is "not to be infringed"? The 1A and 2A go hand in hand and both "complement" each other. So why should we pay for this?

 

Would it make sense to pay $500 to stand in a "free speech" cage and speak your mind once a year along with limitations on what can be said? How about a $500 to be able to cook in your [own] home, then limited to what you are allowed to cook? See, I think this opens a pandora's box of:

-Registration

-Tax

-heavily regulated

-lawyers fees and lawsuits

-Buy insurance (someone mentioned these)

 

For what? Does that sound like more freedom and does it follow "shall not be infringed"?

 

This isn't the point really, what i'm saying is take advantage of the system just like they do. The bill is just a bill, once it's passed it undergoes regulation. There is where we will make the stand on the ethics of paying for our rights. Let the democrats believe they will get something out of it so they pass the bill, then pull a 180 when it comes to regulation. The bill will be very basic in comparison to the regulation of a carry permit, let them pass the bill under the impression they will get lots of money, then we can up hold regulations that are fair to the public.

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...