*NEW* Jeff Van Drew CCW bill

[Z71 4]

I'm confused...lets say this bill passes..a person needs to take a couple of class room course's and live fire qualifyier

to apply for initial ccw permit..as I read the bill, it states that renewal will be the same format..

then there's the part about semi-annual qualify....I quess my question is, will this still cost $500 a yr

with the course study? or is it just live fire semi-annual and course study every yr ? or is course study semi-ann or a one time thing?

the part about getting a judge, to decide issue or denial is b.s too..the issue should remain with the chief; just like the FID..

its stiil not "shall issue" in my mind.....

I bet the first thing a judge will restrict is carrying while driving...

[hopper 36]

You gotta give Jeff Van Drew a little credit , hes the only one out there atleast trying to spur somthing in the legislature !

[karcirate 1]

I'd probably need immunity from civil action on behalf of the perforated perpetrator before I agreed to protect anyone other than family/friends in public.

 

Perforated Perpetrator... I love it! Where did you hear that?

[siderman 1,140]

yea, $100 bucks per year is almost reasonable but is the training class and qualifier gonna cost too? Yearly fee, one time fee? dicounted after first year? Not trying to put the cart before the horse but money matters(to me anyway)

[vjf915 456]

You are legally carrying and out in a public establishment when someone pulls a gun and announces a holdup. You spring into action and draw your weapon. The police come and see two people inside with drawn weapons. What happens next? We will need extensive training above those qualifying standards if acting any way other than self defense.

I think many people are missing the point here. You can protect your life. If you want to divert the suspects attention towards you, and THEN draw after he somehow threatens your safety, that's fine. And that being said, you DO NOT want to ever draw your weapon unless you are absolutely ready to fire. This isn't the kind of thing in the movies where you draw your weapon and shout at each other for 4 minutes to put the guns down. If you draw, its because you are afraid of immediate danger. If you pulled your weapon and didn't fire within ~3 seconds, then you pulled your weapon too soon.

[Freedom-First 2]

If you want to divert the suspects attention towards you, and THEN draw after he somehow threatens your safety, that's fine

 

Why would you want to use yourself as bait and put your self in (additional) danger by drawing the BG's attention towards you just for the sake of being PC or within the nuance of a poorly written law. If you need to act like this in order to protect yourself or someone else which could include a loved one, then the law is not written correctly or in the context of common sense.

[Freedom-First 2]

And that being said, you DO NOT want to ever draw your weapon unless you are absolutely ready to fire. This isn't the kind of thing in the movies where you draw your weapon and shout at each other for 4 minutes to put the guns down. If you draw, its because you are afraid of immediate danger. If you pulled your weapon and didn't fire within ~3 seconds, then you pulled your weapon too soon.

 

I read somewhere that 80% of crimes that are thwarted by use of a hand gun, are done so simply by brandishing a weapon. I agree that if you draw, you should be ready to fire, but if you can avoid pulling the trigger, then it should be the last resort when there is no other option.

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

You gotta give Jeff Van Drew a little credit , hes the only one out there atleast trying to spur somthing in the legislature !

 

 

Are you totally discounting MPC? His bill is realistic and doesn't amount to paying to exercise a right. His bill has also been introduced every legislative session since, I believe, 1995 and every session it gets bottled-up in committee. The only thing Van Drew's bill has going for it is that he's a Democrat - nothing to do with the substance of the bill.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[vjf915 456]

Why would you want to use yourself as bait and put your self in (additional) danger by drawing the BG's attention towards you just for the sake of being PC or within the nuance of a poorly written law. If you need to act like this in order to protect yourself or someone else which could include a loved one, then the law is not written correctly or in the context of common sense.

The purpose of CCW is so that you can protect yourself from harm in the event that you feel you are in danger of harm or losing your life. A CCW is NOT a license to play "cops and robbers" and stop any crime you see being committed. It is NOT something that allows you to protect personal property. This seems to be what you are missing. You CANNOT use a weapon in order to stop a robbery from occurring. In the eyes of the law, nobodies life is worth the price of their purse/wallet. You can only utilize your concealed weapon in order to protect yourself and whoever you are with from injury/death.

[Malsua 1,422]

I read somewhere that 80% of crimes that are thwarted by use of a hand gun, are done so simply by brandishing a weapon. I agree that if you draw, you should be ready to fire, but if you can avoid pulling the trigger, then it should be the last resort when there is no other option.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I

[PeteF 1,044]

You read it right:

 

"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."

 

Isn't this the same as a justifable need? The judge gets to decide what the need is and limit the permit to whatever he wants.

[vjf915 456]

Isn't this the same as a justifable need? The judge gets to decide what the need is and limit the permit to whatever he wants.

Exactly right, and that is ONE of the several issues with this bill.

[Jon 264]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUslGSoEH8I

 

[hopper 36]

Are you totally discounting MPC? His bill is realistic and doesn't amount to paying to exercise a right. His bill has also been introduced every legislative session since, I believe, 1995 and every session it gets bottled-up in committee. The only thing Van Drew's bill has going for it is that he's a Democrat - nothing to do with the substance of the bill.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

I agree totally but like you said "hes a democrat " and unfortunately their the ones running things right now and we could use all the dems we could for support of this !!

[SpecialK 193]

[GoNRA 12]

This bill wouldn't pass anyway, we have no hope when it comes to votes no matter who introduces it. It needs to be done through the judiciary.

[n4p226r 105]

Anyone have a link to the MPC bill for comparison?

[mrjam2jab 9]

Anyone have a link to the MPC bill for comparison?

 

 

A1384

 

and its twin

 

S69

 

Are any of the co sponsors Dems? If so, have one of them submit it as their own.

[djg0770 481]

Not that it really matters, but you can qualify. If those clowns that come to the Bullet Hole can qualify, then anyone can.

 

+1

[ianargent 7]

Needs to remove *any* judges' discretion. And the portion of the fees that go to the general fund probably won't survive a court challenge, but $100 per year is not an impossible amount.

 

Last I checked, most of the NRA classes counted as approved safety classes. If the use-of-force classes are as common, and you only have to do one, no problem.

 

Likewise, as long as the qualification course is no harder than the current retired cop one, no problem; though semi-annual qualification is annoying. Shouldn't have to be so rapid; since firearm skills don't degrade is anything like that timeframe. Cops do it that often for legal/insurance reasons.

 

Better would be to leave the every 2 years, or even bump to every 5. But, as far as I can tell, the renewal consists of sending your qualification chit and your check in, right?

[GoNRA 12]

They should just copy Florida's CCW requirements, end of notes

[tommy3rd 132]

They should just copy Florida's CCW requirements, end of notes

That would be the smart, logical, and efficient way to do it, so it's not gonna happen.

[joecs1 11]

Using a gun for self defense is one thing and it is natural - but what about our ability or rights to use lethal force to stop a crime that is being committed against someone else? What if we saw an unarmed person being held at gun point, or a shooter in a public place? Issues like this are critical and need to be encompassed in any legislation that is considered. Typical NJ politics would be to allow CCW but then make it all but illegal to use the right.

 

 

Seek cover, call police, and be a good witness.

[vjf915 456]

That would be the smart, logical, and efficient way to do it, so it's not gonna happen.

Those are my thoughts exactly. If NJ would just up and change to FL's way of doing things as far as firearms go, laws would not be as restrictive as they are right now.

[PeteF 1,044]

Using a gun for self defense is one thing and it is natural - but what about our ability or rights to use lethal force to stop a crime that is being committed against someone else? What if we saw an unarmed person being held at gun point, or a shooter in a public place? Issues like this are critical and need to be encompassed in any legislation that is considered. Typical NJ politics would be to allow CCW but then make it all but illegal to use the right.

 

 

This is exactly what the anti's are afraid of. You are not a LEO! You don't know the whole story, what if that unarmed person is a drug dealer being arrested by an undercover cop?

 

You SHOULD be able to protect yourself and family and even those with you. But a stranger, no, call the cops, watch and be a witness.

[KpdPipes 388]

This is exactly what the anti's are afraid of. You are not a LEO! You don't know the whole story, what if that unarmed person is a drug dealer being arrested by an undercover cop?

 

You SHOULD be able to protect yourself and family and even those with you. But a stranger, no, call the cops, watch and be a witness.

Do you think that matters to the Anti's???? I have news fir you, if they thought they could get iut done they would not allow Off-Duty carry, they fought VEHEMENTLY against the Retired permits here in NJ, and just about had their heads explode when LEOSA passed. The Antis in NY routinely try to pass legislation that would require Police to try and take "non-Lethal" shots whenever possible.

[vjf915 456]

Screw non lethal shots. I am going to shoot to stop the threat, that means I will not sacrifice MY safety or the safety of whomever I am with to aim for legs or arms. If all I have a clear shot at is a leg or arm, I will take it....otherwise I am shooting for center of mass. But my ONLY concern is my safety and the safety of those I am with, and I absolutely refuse to sacrifice that for a non-lethal shot.

[joejaxx 38]

Do you think that matters to the Anti's???? I have news fir you, if they thought they could get iut done they would not allow Off-Duty carry, they fought VEHEMENTLY against the Retired permits here in NJ, and just about had their heads explode when LEOSA passed. The Antis in NY routinely try to pass legislation that would require Police to try and take "non-Lethal" shots whenever possible.

 

KpdPipes, when I read this on the news I could not believe it. All of the anti-gun people are watching WWWAAAAYYY too many movies.