ianargent 7 Posted March 24, 2011 New Jersey cares about her citizens, or some such malarkey Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted March 24, 2011 Because if I had a CCW permit, I wouldn't want my name released publicly....so I'm not going to try to throw someone else under that bus. That being said, I would have to imagine that none of them have a justifiable need, and just know the right people. I agree. Could you request it without names. Like the nyt did but use it against them Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted March 25, 2011 If they were to keep the personal information private, yet release information regarding the "justifiable need", then I think that's acceptable. I don't mean MY standard of acceptable, I just think that releasing that much personal information to the public is a moral issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommy3rd 132 Posted March 25, 2011 This State sucks!!! What makes law abiding citizens in bordering States like Pennsylvania and Delaware any different than the law abiding citizens of NJ? They're smarter and know who to vote for and who to get rid of each election. Lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Matt 0 Posted March 25, 2011 Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zed's_Dead 16 Posted March 25, 2011 Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits? You're right...it's called discovery. If they haven't already requeted it, however, the time to do so has more than likely expired. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted March 25, 2011 Http://www6.state.nj.us/DCA_OPRA/department.jsp Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommy3rd 132 Posted March 25, 2011 Sorry if this has already been said in this thread (didn't have time to read through all 14 pages) but can't the plaintiffs gain access to the granted permit information through discovery (or whatever its called, I don't know anything about lawyer speak) and expose the favoritism and blatant arbitrary nature of the issuance of carry permits? And that shouldn't be too much to ask, since there's only like 1200 CCW permits throughout the whole state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ktm525xcatv 5 Posted March 25, 2011 And that shouldn't be too much to ask, since there's only like 1200 CCW permits throughout the whole state. How many of those are retired LEO? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommy3rd 132 Posted March 25, 2011 How many of those are retired LEO? I read somewhere that those and armored truck drivers are excluded from that count. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EchoMirage 137 Posted March 26, 2011 Might be a stupid question. But why can't we come up with the list of every current ccw holder and what their justifiable need was. How would you obtain that info? I'm sure we'll see some lame reasons compared to these out of the supposed 1200 permits, id lay 8 to 5 that no more then 200 have a 'justifiable reason'. the rest simply greased the right palms. nothing more. same reason trump has a permit to carry in NYC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hopper 36 Posted March 26, 2011 I wonder how many judges have a license and have denied people that same right , would be interesting to see how many hypocrites we have ??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ktm525xcatv 5 Posted March 26, 2011 out of the supposed 1200 permits, id lay 8 to 5 that no more then 200 have a 'justifiable reason'. the rest simply greased the right palms. nothing more. same reason trump has a permit to carry in NYC. Didn't know trump has one. Howard Stern does. Sylvester Stalone has one(california) and he supports the brady campaign. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sig2009 3 Posted March 26, 2011 I wonder how many judges have a license and have denied people that same right , would be interesting to see how many hypocrites we have ??? I shoot with two judges on the weekend and neither one can get a CCW permit. So from my experience I don't think there are many if any judges that can get one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigHayden 77 Posted March 26, 2011 I read somewhere that those and armored truck drivers are excluded from that count. Only retired LEO are excluded from that count, since they don't have to provide "justifiable need". Armored car personnel and private security (executive protection) are the majority of those ~1K permits, and they do have to have "justifiable need". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianargent 7 Posted March 26, 2011 Doesn't the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act pretty much mean that retired LEOs can carry regardless of the state's wishes? So of course they don't have to demonstrate "justifiable need" - the laws of the US have done so for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EchoMirage 137 Posted March 26, 2011 So of course they don't have to demonstrate "justifiable need" - the laws of the US have done so for them. if that were true, constitutional carry would be nationwide, uncontested and 100% accepted 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ktm525xcatv 5 Posted March 26, 2011 I shoot with two judges on the weekend and neither one can get a CCW permit. So from my experience I don't think there are many if any judges that can get one. I thought active judges were immune or could do no wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vjf915 456 Posted March 26, 2011 I thought active judges were immune or could do no wrong? Judges are immune from civil prosecution from the results of their trials. That's about it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianargent 7 Posted March 27, 2011 if that were true, constitutional carry would be nationwide, uncontested and 100% accepted The problem is that the US Congress passed a law saying that active and retired LEOs (who meet certain requirements) must be permitted to carry, not that anyone must be permitted to carry. The US Congress could pass such a bill, I just doubt they will any time soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Live_Free_orDie 1 Posted March 27, 2011 Only retired LEO are excluded from that count, since they don't have to provide "justifiable need". Armored car personnel and private security (executive protection) are the majority of those ~1K permits, and they do have to have "justifiable need". You can add Private Detectives into that list too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jon 264 Posted March 27, 2011 You can add Private Detectives into that list too. Vast majority of PIs are retired LEOs anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tommy3rd 132 Posted March 27, 2011 Vast majority of PIs are retired LEOs anyway. I looked at the app at one time, and the requirement was either being a former LEO with at least 5 years experience or working under a current PI. Even Bail Enforcement Agents had strict requirements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Live_Free_orDie 1 Posted March 27, 2011 The problem is that the US Congress passed a law saying that active and retired LEOs (who meet certain requirements) must be permitted to carry, not that anyone must be permitted to carry. The US Congress could pass such a bill, I just doubt they will any time soon. I'm still trying to figure out the whole CCW under LEOSA thing and how it squares Constitutionally. What makes retired LE any different than any other Law Abiding U.S. Citizen, other than the fact that they have a stronger lobby than the NRA and SAF? They no longer have Law Enforcement powers, they’re unsupervised and do not receive any mandated annual training (Physical/Tactical/Weapons). Are they a different protected class of U.S. citizen and where is that class defined under the Constitution? Are their lives and the lives of their families more important to protect than ours? Does crime only happen to jump out at them when they are not in their homes? If crime does happen to them, can’t they expect the same Police response that we’re afforded? It all makes me sick!!! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianargent 7 Posted March 27, 2011 It was passed during a period of time in which the Second Amendment was not (yet) understood to "...protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home," much less that it does protect other "lawful purposes" such as self-defense outside of the home. With the change in the legal landscape, laws such as this one will change as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianargent 7 Posted March 27, 2011 BEcause we're taking baby steps. No need to go for the Hail Mary, legally speaking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NicePants 58 Posted March 28, 2011 So when can we expect the next update on the case? The first page only had up to the reply the AG sent about two weeks ago. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Recon Racoon 49 Posted March 28, 2011 So when can we expect the next update on the case? The first page only had up to the reply the AG sent about two weeks ago. I asked the same. The last brief that New Jersey sent in was the last one and now we wait until September for a ruling. It seems like all we do is wait in this state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Live_Free_orDie 1 Posted March 28, 2011 I asked the same. The last brief that New Jersey sent in was the last one and now we wait until September for a ruling. It seems like all we do is wait in this state. September if we're lucky! I predict Walls won't care that Dow makes a ludicrous argument, or that her brief's read like a first year law student (being gracious) wrote them...and will find for the State. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigHayden 77 Posted March 29, 2011 September if we're lucky! I predict Walls won't care that Dow makes a ludicrous argument, or that her brief's read like a first year law student (being gracious) wrote them...and will find for the State. Do you think he will grant the motion to dismiss, or that he will rule in favor of the State? Not that it makes a difference, because an appeal will be filed post haste, but I'm curious what everybody thinks will happen. BTW, Dow didn't personally write any of the state's briefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites