$500 CCW - would you?

[mikelets456 78]

a nominal charge to cover expenses and some training is fine by me. someone before said, the machines for fingerprinting don't run themselves and trainers don't work for free. if you want to exercise your free speech rights and publish a book - you have to pay a publisher to print it. if you go to church/synagogue/whatever - you're often asked to pay a tithe. nominal fees are understandable - around $ 50 - 100 per year would be reasonable. we're in NJ after all, so to hope for a lower fee is unreal. constant psych evaluations are unreasonable. a $500 "just because" fee is ridiculous.

 

Key word is ASKED! Not forced, not "made to", no obligation... free to do; donation out of YOUR CHOICE. See, we have been brainwashed to believe that $150 (forced or you don't get a license to carry) to pay for a CCW is expected and fair. Would it be safe to say that $150 (forced) is fair to be able to use the restrooms at work for the year? How about to enter you local Church?

 

This is a right that "shall not be infringed". meaning, there is NO obstacle to keep you from getting a firearms or carrying it. I know it sounds "crazy", but criminals will ALWAYS break the law and their right is NOT being infringed, but us morons who pay $150, take courses, get fingerprinted, wait for 90 days and have to buy permits that expire are not being infringed upon?

[tommy3rd 132]

Imagine if we all paid $500 to the Second Amendment Foundation? They're our best bet for firearms rights.

If the SAF can work something out for me to be able to carry, I'll gladly give the foundation $500 annually.

[FFDP82 4]

redacted

[FFDP82 4]

redacted

[KpdPipes 388]

Part of the reason for setting the Price that high is ALSO to try and discourage people from getting them. Lets say a year goes by, and they DONT get the thousands of people signing up because of the prohibitive cost...NOW they can say "There isnt any interest in CCW in Nj therefore we can roll the process back to where it was".

[JackDaWack 2,895]

To all those saying that it is OK to let this bill go through, and that we will lower the fee later, I must ask, how do you plan to do that?

 

Ask the anti-gun governor?

The anti-gun legislator?

The anti-gun judges who think you shouldn't even own a gun, much less carry one?

The anti-gun police chiefs and police unions who think if you want to carry a gun, you should wear a badge?

 

Through regulation of the Bill. The bill i don't believe will state a specific amount of money. It will probably be a revision of the current bills in place for CCW. People can contest the bill in which it favors a certain group of people(the wealthy), and that's not a hard argument with a price tag like that.

 

NJ passed medical marijuana bill a little while ago, but the bill is still being revised and regulations are still being put in place(who would of thought?). So there is still a fight even after the bill is passed. It's important to understand that the initial bill passed is not always the one put into legislation, there are many steps a bill undergoes after it is initial passed.

 

Unless you guys got a better idea? Beggars can't be choosers.

[Caine 147]

To all those saying that it is OK to let this bill go through, and that we will lower the fee later, I must ask, how do you plan to do that?

That's one of the big problems I have with the whole thing. I think whatever fee is set, it will only go up over the years, not down.

 

Even tho I would probably end up paying the $500 if it came to it, I really feel this bill is not the answer we're all looking for.

[Parker 213]

To all those saying that it is OK to let this bill go through, and that we will lower the fee later, I must ask, how do you plan to do that?

 

Ask the anti-gun governor?

The anti-gun legislator?

The anti-gun judges who think you shouldn't even own a gun, much less carry one?

The anti-gun police chiefs and police unions who think if you want to carry a gun, you should wear a badge?

 

You are spot-on with these four bullets. (no pun intended) I have been saying the same for years.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I have not voted yet because i really don't know. When it passes and it's time to pay up, ask me then.

[Shawnmoore81 623]

Well do I like the price? No. Will I pay it? Yes. I'd rather have it a's an expensive option then not an option at all.

[bbk 188]

Part of the reason for setting the Price that high is ALSO to try and discourage people from getting them. Lets say a year goes by, and they DONT get the thousands of people signing up because of the prohibitive cost...NOW they can say "There isnt any interest in CCW in Nj therefore we can roll the process back to where it was".

 

I totally get what you're saying here, and why having a bill like this pass is so important. Politicians ultimately spin their facts to their own agenda... its the same reason why they'll say crime is down in an area, only because people are too afraid to report it. Or that a woman can't cite rape because she wears provocative clothing when she goes out...

Because people wouldn't sign up for CCW (because of the massive price), they can say there is no interest and should be dropped as an idea.

So, eh, now I'm wavering on my vote.

[lunker 274]

I totally get what you're saying here, and why having a bill like this pass is so important. Politicians ultimately spin their facts to their own agenda... its the same reason why they'll say crime is down in an area, only because people are too afraid to report it. Or that a woman can't cite rape because she wears provocative clothing when she goes out...

Because people wouldn't sign up for CCW (because of the massive price), they can say there is no interest and should be dropped as an idea.

So, eh, now I'm wavering on my vote.

 

It's a foot in the door we don't have now. Waiting for lawsuits to resolve themselves is making the perfect the enemy of the good.

[savageshooter 10]

I can but I wouldn't do it. This is NJ, the land of "increase everything." It would start off as $500, which is way too much, until they raised it to $700, then work their way up to $1000. Another cash cow. They're doing it with everything else and Carry permit fees would be no different. I'd go $200 per year but anything more than that is an insult.

[Johnnydammit 1]

It was floating around that if we were to have ccw we would have to have insurance with it to! What a way for them to really make money on us!DOH!!!!

[david8613 69]

i am not in agreement with them making us pay for something that is our right, but at the same time it is a start and could hopefully change things for the better for us in the future, but remember we are in new jersey now were everything that involves money goes up and up! the insurance thing i was thinking about too, another way to make money, imagine how bad the those companies will shove it up our asses!

[BigHayden 77]

If you guys haven't read the full bill, you really should. It turns the "may issue" into a "shall issue" and adds the language about the $500.00/yr fee and the 6 month requalifications, but believe it or not, that's actually not the bad part. The bill also gives the judges (the same ones who deny our right to carry now...) the authority to deny based on "character", like PA, and leaves in all the language about the judges having the authority to place restrictions on time/place you could carry. It's not unrealistic to think that every permit that is granted to us common folks would have restrictions like, "Valid to carry on Wednesdays only between the times of 12:46 PM and 12:47 PM in any New Jersey city whose name begins with the letter Q", and that would be permissible under Van Drew's bill.

 

On one hand, this is one of the worst reform ideas we've ever seen in NJ. On the other hand, it is a pro(ish)-gun bill being put forward by a NJ Democrat, and that concept is an encouraging thing. I think we should all contact Van Drew's office and let him know that we support permit to carry reform, but his bill has some serious flaws and that the biggest one of those isn't even the $500.00 extortion fee he's proposing.

[Krdshrk 3,877]

Well put, BigHayden.

[kenw 293]

I've read the entire Bill a couple of times, and it occurs to me that this is a huge red herring designed only to derail the 2A suits that are most likely coming, and that will certainly result in a more equitable outcome for us.

 

From my perspective, the most onerous part is the psych evaluation. Remember Catch-22? For those who are too young, it goes something like this:

 

The only way to get out of the military is to be proven crazy, If you want to get out, then you're obviously not crazy, and must stay.

 

Turn that around a bit.

 

If you want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in this safe and secure society, you must be paranoid, and since we've determined that paranoia is reason enough to disqualify a permit application, you are therefore ineligible to carry a firearm. Application denied.

 

Not saying it will happen, just that it could. The parameters of the evaluation (the very mention of which I find intrusive and insulting), would have to be clearly and narrowly defined.

 

Of course, there are other parts of the Bill that are nearly as bad, but none that have the Machiavellian potential that this has to paint an entire population as paranoid crazies.

 

I vote no.

[Malsua 1,422]

I've read the entire Bill a couple of times, and it occurs to me that this is a huge red herring designed only to derail the 2A suits that are most likely coming, and that will certainly result in a more equitable outcome for us.

 

Yes, that's exactly what it is. This guy is just trying to get ahead of the curve and dip his hands into your pocket rather than getting smacked down and getting NOTHING.

 

I'm really torn on the issue but I have to agree. To hell with 'em. They stuck their @#$@% up our @#$#@ for years and now they want us to agree to onerous rules to get what we have coming to us anyway.

[AtlanticCounty 0]

I voted to pay which I would. Then I would **** about it until the renewal came up at which point I would renew again setting off a new cycle of bitching.

 

I knew the price would be extremely high just like everything else in NJ.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I've read the entire Bill a couple of times, and it occurs to me that this is a huge red herring designed only to derail the 2A suits that are most likely coming, and that will certainly result in a more equitable outcome for us.

 

From my perspective, the most onerous part is the psych evaluation. Remember Catch-22? For those who are too young, it goes something like this:

 

The only way to get out of the military is to be proven crazy, If you want to get out, then you're obviously not crazy, and must stay.

 

Turn that around a bit.

 

If you want a permit to carry a concealed firearm in this safe and secure society, you must be paranoid, and since we've determined that paranoia is reason enough to disqualify a permit application, you are therefore ineligible to carry a firearm. Application denied.

 

Not saying it will happen, just that it could. The parameters of the evaluation (the very mention of which I find intrusive and insulting), would have to be clearly and narrowly defined.

 

Of course, there are other parts of the Bill that are nearly as bad, but none that have the Machiavellian potential that this has to paint an entire population as paranoid crazies.

 

I vote no.

 

the psych exam is one of my biggest complaints as well.. (second only to the price tag).. who chooses the doctor? what if he is die hard anti-gun and you have no idea... evaluating someone's mental capacity in regards to carrying a firearm seems very arbitrary... if I truly go nuts and decide to go on a shooting spree is my lack of CCW licensing really going to stop me? NO..

 

if they want to make it a safe process & a money generator I have no complaints..

 

lower the cost, and have it be inclusive meaning that whatever they elect to charge it should include things as standard.. maybe a written class, and even quarterly qualifications, all that could be done at local shooting ranges that are state owned used in the same way to qualify police.. these facilities are already in existence, and are already staffed, and are already familiar with qualifying police... why reinvent the wheel here.. and having properly trained citizens carrying guns does make for a safer society.. I understand the whole will not be infringed.. but we have to play the game with the deck of cards we have... going from an ultra oppressive anti-gun state to a free license-less open carry state over night will simply not happen..

[mikelets456 78]

but we have to play the game with the deck of cards we have...

 

 

That's what they want you to believe! The people have MORE power than you give them credit for.... keep on them, you'll see!

[BigHayden 77]

We lost our rights incrementally over the years, and even though we might not like it, that's exactly how we're going to get them back, incrementally. Saying things like, "what part of shall not be infringed don't they get" or comparing this to taxes on the 1st amendment is great forum banter, but it doesn't apply directly in the real world. The truth is, the 1st amendment was challenged extensively in court over the past 200 years to get to where we are today (and I would argue we still have 1A infringements out there); we're less than 3 years into the same battle to define the 2nd amendment, so we have a long way to go before we have enough case law to compare 1A and 2A.

 

Even when SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional, that does not stop the other side from trying to push those boundaries. Look at DC after the Heller decision, and Chicago after the McDonald decision. What they had was declared illegal, so the put something else illegal in its place and that will also have to be challenged. We're going to face those same issues here in NJ since we have the same pedigree of politicians they have in DC and Chicago.

 

The Van Drew bill sucks in its entirety, but the $500.00 fee isn't the worst part. Shall issue means nothing if they can place restrictions on where and when you can carry, or if they can declare you to be of questionable character and deny you.

[toknee 0]

Would I pay the $500?

 

Yes I would, but with some reservations.

[fishnut 2,358]

i would pay it and i would be pissed but i at least i would have a 1911 straped to my side

[mrjam2jab 9]

On principle, I'm against the $500 fee (unless it was a lifetime permit like Indiana has)

 

Indiana Lifetime license = $75

 

Just saying.

[CageFighter 236]

I would definately pay, even tho its a bit EXCESSIVE!

 

...you wanna play, you gonna PAY!

[vjf915 456]

If it were simply the $500 fee, then yes I could, and would pay. Being able to defend myself in a public setting IS worth $500 a year, even though the price is outrageous. However, I am not sure if I would be able to afford the higher price with all the other fees tacked on. We will see if this hopefully gets passed.

[KpdPipes 388]

We lost our rights incrementally over the years, and even though we might not like it, that's exactly how we're going to get them back, incrementally. Saying things like, "what part of shall not be infringed don't they get" or comparing this to taxes on the 1st amendment is great forum banter, but it doesn't apply directly in the real world. The truth is, the 1st amendment was challenged extensively in court over the past 200 years to get to where we are today (and I would argue we still have 1A infringements out there); we're less than 3 years into the same battle to define the 2nd amendment, so we have a long way to go before we have enough case law to compare 1A and 2A.

 

Even when SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional, that does not stop the other side from trying to push those boundaries. Look at DC after the Heller decision, and Chicago after the McDonald decision. What they had was declared illegal, so the put something else illegal in its place and that will also have to be challenged. We're going to face those same issues here in NJ since we have the same pedigree of politicians they have in DC and Chicago.

 

The Van Drew bill sucks in its entirety, but the $500.00 fee isn't the worst part. Shall issue means nothing if they can place restrictions on where and when you can carry, or if they can declare you to be of questionable character and deny you.

#1. Most states, even those with Actual "Shall Issue" have restrictions on Where you can carry, such as Municipal Buildings/Courts, and Alcohol Establishments.

#2. NJ wont ever be "Shall Issue" without a whole lot of money being spent on Attorneys, or SAF getting involved to fight for us.

McDonald opened the door, but NOTHING is going to change overnight, or without a lot of fighting. it WILL change i;m sure, but it will be incrementally over a LONG time sadly.

[BigHayden 77]

#1. Most states, even those with Actual "Shall Issue" have restrictions on Where you can carry, such as Municipal Buildings/Courts, and Alcohol Establishments.

#2. NJ wont ever be "Shall Issue" without a whole lot of money being spent on Attorneys, or SAF getting involved to fight for us.

McDonald opened the door, but NOTHING is going to change overnight, or without a lot of fighting. it WILL change i;m sure, but it will be incrementally over a LONG time sadly.

 

#1. All the shall issue states that have restrictions on where you can carry are codified in state law. The NJ statute says that a judge can place limitations on when and where (on an individual basis), and that would be in addition to what's codified in state law.

 

#2. We're in complete agreement on this.