TR20 47 Posted April 6, 2014 Wow. Already talking about what we are carrying. How many guns they are allowing on the permit. Qualifying costs. Haha. Optimistic few days here. Let's get to the 21st first My thoughts exactly. I don't want to set myself up for a possible let down Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 6, 2014 I have a feeling that, if we get CCW, we'll see the price of required training skyrocket due to the law of supply and demand. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not. This signature is AWESOME!!! Maybe, maybe not. Anthony of GFH just made it FREE for members of his range. I am hoping ANJRPC will also make the quals available for range members at Cherry Ridge. What better way to stick it to NJ than helping people get licensed. I would gladly go through the instructor certification and volunteer my time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 6, 2014 Wow. Already talking about what we are carrying. How many guns they are allowing on the permit. Qualifying costs. Haha. Optimistic few days here. Let's get to the 21st first You have a point! But I like to be optimistic... Besides, it looks like Judge O'Scannlain is playing chess with the Peruta decision and Kamala's motion to intervene. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted April 7, 2014 How so? Was he the guy that wrote the majority opinion on peruta? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted April 7, 2014 I have a feeling that, if we get CCW, we'll see the price of required training skyrocket due to the law of supply and demand. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not. This signature is AWESOME!!! Really, cause I suspect you will see lots of training of trainers unless being blessed as sufficiently credentialed is overly complicated. Heck, even then, it might be more likely with grass roots pushing to make flaming hoops an easily ticked box on a form. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 8, 2014 How so? Was he the guy that wrote the majority opinion on peruta? Yes, and I have a feeling he wants to see Drake granted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 8, 2014 Really, cause I suspect you will see lots of training of trainers unless being blessed as sufficiently credentialed is overly complicated. Heck, even then, it might be more likely with grass roots pushing to make flaming hoops an easily ticked box on a form. There a few of them. Same trainers who do RPO quals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Glock guy 1,125 Posted April 8, 2014 the consensus I have gotten from some lawyers is that the SCOTUS could essentially gut NJ laws...to the point of elimination of permitting, FPID cards and the AWB. NJ is in serious jeopardy. If the SCOTUS applies the "common use" clause enumerated in past rulings, the AWB is done, magazine limits are done and their "carefully crafted Scheme" of permitting is in jeopardy of being struck down. The foundations of all NJ gun laws are "justifiable need" and the fact that NJ out right bans firearms, allowing them only by exemption is NOT gonna be lost by the courts. Remember, NJ is/was the start point for all other gun laws in the USA. That would be like the last scene in Return of the Jedi, after the evil empire has been defeated. The Ewoks wil be dancing in the streets with the rest of us! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeff 13 Posted April 8, 2014 Somehow I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS will do anything other than answer the very specific question posed to them. But I hope I'm wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 8, 2014 Somehow I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS will do anything other than answer the very specific question posed to them. But I hope I'm wrong. That is probably what they will do. IF they even take the case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,766 Posted April 8, 2014 Somehow I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS will do anything other than answer the very specific question posed to them. But I hope I'm wrong. There are two questions: "QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for selfdefense. 2. Whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self defense first prove a “justifiable need” for doing so." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
millsan1 3 Posted April 8, 2014 My reading and understanding of SCOTUS rulings re: 2A are this: A state must allow the serfs to carry in some form, either OC or CC. There can be regulations, but they cannot be onerous nor effectively exclusionary (like justifiable need) Private enterprises are allowed to ban weapons (any weapon, including CC firearms). My mind is that SCOTUS will hear the case, order NJ to either allow OC or remove "justifiable neeahd" from CC and will give a time-frame, just like IL, which had 120 days, if I remember correctly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steve_G 51 Posted April 8, 2014 My mind is that SCOTUS will hear the case, order NJ to either allow OC or remove "justifiable neeahd" from CC and will give a time-frame, just like IL, which had 120 days, if I remember correctly. I see no reason for a time frame other than immediately with NJ. Chicago had no CC laws on the books, they were given time to create some. NJ has the laws, they just need to remove the justifiable need clause. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted April 8, 2014 Somehow I find it hard to believe that SCOTUS will do anything other than answer the very specific question posed to them. But I hope I'm wrong. Well, specifically gut the laws? Not likely. Gut essentially all of NJ laws? Possibly. Primarily due to the fact that NJ law operates from the assumption that exercising the 2nd amendment is illegal, and then carves out exceptions to that, thus forcing an affirmative defense to exercise an enumerated, incorporated right. This is not generally accepted for an incorporated right. They might address this directly, but I doubt it. If they were to step beyond the narrow question at all, my suspicion given their statements of not wanting to have every technicality be a scotus issue, is that they may very well set forth a more specific legal test. So far, every anti ruling has pushed the limits of intermediate scrutiny specified in heller. Drake doesn't even pretend to rise to the level of intermediate scrutiny. Depending on what kind of test they spell out, it could imperil a lot of anti laws like the various AWBs or mag capacity limits, for NJ a well spelled out test placing the level of scrutiny at the high end of the intermediate level could make every nj law challengable based on how the law is constructed. That doesn't mean the net affect wouldn't pass scrutiny, just that if it breaks the root of nj gun law that the 2nd is illegal to exercise EXCEPT... The entire nj gun laws will have to go back to the drawing board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
intercooler 41 Posted April 8, 2014 as I said...NJ is in DEEP if they do take the case...and they will have to. There has NEVER been such a grouping of amicus briefs done by so many states to ask...there has never been ANY challenged NJ laws brought to the SCOTUS. Remember, ALL the federal AWB crap was directly copied off NJ awb...most all states gun control laws were derived from NJ Laws. NJ is the BIG one...they can smash the whole foundation of these laws and they would be moot since the legal concepts they were built on are struck. NJ patently believes that the R2KBA is NOT a fundamental right...and they even say that in their brief, for the SCOTUS to let stand the foundations of that would be an affront to Heller and McDonald's incorporation into the 14th amendment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galapoola 102 Posted April 9, 2014 My reading and understanding of SCOTUS rulings re: 2A are this: A state must allow the serfs to carry in some form, either OC or CC. There can be regulations, but they cannot be onerous nor effectively exclusionary (like justifiable need) Private enterprises are allowed to ban weapons (any weapon, including CC firearms). My mind is that SCOTUS will hear the case, order NJ to either allow OC or remove "justifiable neeahd" from CC and will give a time-frame, just like IL, which had 120 days, if I remember correctly. absolutely no need for 120 or even 1 day for state to act, IL had no carry permit scheme, NJ does. The day of the ruling, superior courts (they issue permits) must allow "self defense" as your "justifiable need" in your "letter of need" attached to your application. No further statutes or admin code required. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CommonSense 0 Posted April 9, 2014 Much better chance of getting concealed carry rather than open carry in New Jersey. A properly concealed weapon causes no fear, concern or alarm with the public; open carry would literally cause hysteria in a state with no prior history of it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NEAHS 11 Posted April 10, 2014 You guys talking about CC or OC, remember that NJ Carry Permit does not make any difference if it is CC or OC. It's just a carry permit, so you can carry it either way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 10, 2014 Much better chance of getting concealed carry rather than open carry in New Jersey. A properly concealed weapon causes no fear, concern or alarm with the public; open carry would literally cause hysteria in a state with no prior history of it. It could go either way. Open carry could be seen as a way to discourage people from carrying. Of course, if they restrict us to open carry, I want us all to march on Trenton every month carrying openly, and just carry openly everywhere. Let them realize that their plan is not working. Of course they probably realize this and they will just let it fall to concealed carry... that's if they even pass a law. They might just leave it as-is which means you can choose openly or concealed. But again, they have to take the case first... let's get there first before we start planning how to carry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted April 10, 2014 The Retired LEO Permit says "concealed". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Alex V 99 Posted April 10, 2014 Much better chance of getting concealed carry rather than open carry in New Jersey. A properly concealed weapon causes no fear, concern or alarm with the public; open carry would literally cause hysteria in a state with no prior history of it. I can only imagine the volume of calls the PD dispatch would get if even .1% of NJ pupulation was open carrying the day it was allowed. There would not be enough cops to go on all the calls lol. It would be hysterical. They would feel they have to investigate each call to make sure the person had the propper paperwork. I would imagine the same person causing multiple calls per hour. The cops would pull their hair out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisJM981 924 Posted April 10, 2014 I can only imagine the volume of calls the PD dispatch would get if even .1% of NJ pupulation was open carrying the day it was allowed. There would not be enough cops to go on all the calls lol. It would be hysterical. They would feel they have to investigate each call to make sure the person had the propper paperwork. I would imagine the same person causing multiple calls per hour. The cops would pull their hair out. Depending where you're going to OC, I'd suggest wearing a vest under your shirt the first week or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jtd771 18 Posted April 10, 2014 I can only imagine the volume of calls the PD dispatch would get if even .1% of NJ pupulation was open carrying the day it was allowed. There would not be enough cops to go on all the calls lol. It would be hysterical. They would feel they have to investigate each call to make sure the person had the propper paperwork. I would imagine the same person causing multiple calls per hour. The cops would pull their hair out. I'm afraid many would be arrested too and charged with disturbing the peace or similar disorderly persons offenses. The view would be it's your fault for causing someone else to be afraid and contact the police. There are many officers who support concealed carry but there also many, especially those in power, that do not believe civilians should be armed under any circumstance and would throw anything they could at us. Their theory would be to let the courts figure it out in the mean time they look good to antis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
galapoola 102 Posted April 10, 2014 Funny how time/place/manner makes all the difference. I was at a steel match in NJ, probably 200 people all walking around the 6 lanes with handguns in holsters or at the line making the bang-ding noise. A 20 something local LEO just happen to be patrolling and wandered into the parking area near the competition. First and only time I've seen a cop on the job at our club. He was standing near his squad car surveying the scene. No one gave him much more than a look. Never walked over to the registration table or engaged any of the participants. He's the one who felt out of place, not anyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 11, 2014 http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/supreme-court-challenge-student-predictions/ 47.4% polled predict a grant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted April 11, 2014 http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/04/supreme-court-challenge-student-predictions/ 47.4% polled predict a grant. That is students. Also the final result of that is basically a 50/50 shoulder shrug. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryan_j 0 Posted April 11, 2014 That is students. Also the final result of that is basically a 50/50 shoulder shrug. Yes, I know. But it's encouraging, rather than just an outright prediction of denial. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sota 1,191 Posted April 11, 2014 Funny how time/place/manner makes all the difference. I was at a steel match in NJ, probably 200 people all walking around the 6 lanes with handguns in holsters or at the line making the bang-ding noise. A 20 something local LEO just happen to be patrolling and wandered into the parking area near the competition. First and only time I've seen a cop on the job at our club. He was standing near his squad car surveying the scene. No one gave him much more than a look. Never walked over to the registration table or engaged any of the participants. He's the one who felt out of place, not anyone else. sad part is he didn't come over and say 'Hi.' bet if he did, was cool and just shot the shit with some people they'd probably invite him to take a couple plinks. gun people (for the most part) are a really friendly bunch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
springfieldxds 0 Posted April 11, 2014 5.4% of teams expect the Court to call for the views of the Solicitor General what does this mean Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYMetsFan86 9 Posted April 11, 2014 who the hell is solicitor general? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites