Jump to content
ScottRod

License to carry concealed

Recommended Posts

Just because we have qualified that we can own weapons doesn't mean everyone deserves one. It just means the methods of determining who is qualified to own, may not have been scrutinized enough. i.e., our famed red haired joker friend that went amok in the cinema.... You may pass all the red tape if you've never been considered nuts, never committed a crime, etc... Doesn't mean you are not an arsehole. Proof of that exists in many parts of the country.

 

And who should decide if we are worthy or not? Last I checked, the only qualifier for owning weapons was being a lawful, non-crazy US citizen. Besides, I didn't really notice anyone bashing cops in this thread, unless you meant the comments about the state police, which last I checked were pretty truthful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

may not have been scrutinized enough. i.e., our famed red haired joker friend that went amok in the cinema....

 

Actually, the current reports indicate that at least one specialist he saw raised a red flag. Something is broken in this country if people who raise red flags about individuals are routinely ignored.

 

Not to stir the pot - that's not the intent here, but it seems as though LE's concern revolves around solving crimes after they occur and not preventing them before they occur. Certainly, we cannot have a "thought police" - but when a Dr raises genuine concerns about someone who may be a danger to himself and others, the course of action in this case was "oh look - he dropped out of school, cool, no longer our problem..." and not "Okay we need to interview this individual with a Police Mental Health Physician".

 

The late 60's and early 70's dismantling of the sanitariums and the turning loose of the (truly) mentally ill onto the streets did favors to none of us. Certainly, there were instances of people being confined in substandard conditions, other cases of people who should not have been confined, etc. But I have firsthand knowledge of a gentleman (not really gentle) who has been in and out of an institution, each time he gets out, he ends up doing something else violent. Why do they keep releasing him? Well - simply because they MUST, that's the "goal" of the institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I'd get some heat for this.... So, yes, example of the State Police.... We should individualize our comments instead of bashing situations as a whole. Hence, the bad egg statement. Punish the individuals, not the whole.

The worthy part is not meant to say we are not worthy. It's meant to mean how others would perceive us by our comments. It may not matter to you or anyone how you feel and I'm pretty I'm much the same way, but some of these posts do not give us ammo. They hurt us. It's not helping our strengths acting that way. Difference is I won't bash a whole group.

 

I didn't steer this thread away from the CCW subject. Someone else did. And bottom line, this is what stimulated my response. Some here are always looking for reasons to bad mouth someone. In this case, the LEOs.

You think this makes us look good? I don't think so. This isn't the only thread this has happened either. There has been a lot of threads with negative injections out of subject.

You want to bash, keep it individualize like Lautenmummy or something of that nature. You're picking one person, not all of his kind. Same with LEO or anyone for that matter.

 

Fair enough. That was a bit of a generalization and I apologize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. You guys have seriously provided me with a solid 10 min of laughter. I loved all the comments, you guys are a riot.

 

I sincerely appreciate the answers and I pretty much heard its impossible and I would be wasting my time. Seriously makes me want to file suit against the state because it angers me. I genuinely feel that I have a legitimate reason to carry and I know I would be denied. I figured I would make this post in hopes that someone knew something that I didn't. :-(

 

 

Sent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS.... I spoke with a NJ State Trooper and told him that I had my PA license to carry and wanted to know if there was a way I could get my NJ permit. His response was, "Isn't your PA permit valid in NJ?" and when I said no he said, "Oh well I wouldn't worry about it. You have a good reason to carry and if I ever pulled you over I would let you go." and I was stunned and laughed and said, "welllll....I don't wanna count on it being you every time I get pulled over". Seriously?!? I'm not generalizing!!!! Just had to share that true story...

 

 

Sent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS.... I spoke with a NJ State Trooper and told him that I had my PA license to carry and wanted to know if there was a way I could get my NJ permit. His response was, "Isn't your PA permit valid in NJ?" and when I said no he said, "Oh well I wouldn't worry about it. You have a good reason to carry and if I ever pulled you over I would let you go." and I was stunned and laughed and said, "welllll....I don't wanna count on it being you every time I get pulled over". Seriously?!? I'm not generalizing!!!! Just had to share that true story...

 

 

Sent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

 

:icon_e_sad::facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. You guys have seriously provided me with a solid 10 min of laughter. I loved all the comments, you guys are a riot.

 

I sincerely appreciate the answers and I pretty much heard its impossible and I would be wasting my time. Seriously makes me want to file suit against the state because it angers me. I genuinely feel that I have a legitimate reason to carry and I know I would be denied. I figured I would make this post in hopes that someone knew something that I didn't. :-(

 

 

Sent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

 

FYI - there is already a lawsuit over NJ's lack of issuing carry permits well underway by people that were denied and probably had more of a "justifiable need" (if that's actually possible) than your circumstance. It's being handled by the ANJRPC and an SAF affiliated lawyer.

 

Driving through Paterson today to pick up some parts, I was thinking that running this errand is all the genuine need anyone should need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For those wondering why I may want it, I inspect vacant homes (typically foreclosed homes) for banks almost every day and have been in several dangerous situations. I find I feel 1000x more comfortable and secure when I'm in PA and can carry the weapon on me when in these vacant homes in bad neighborhoods.

 

Sent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

 

I've heard of other housing inspector types who pursued the CCW due to dangerous situations, even though they worked in a government agency type job, they got denied right out of the gate. You say you do it for banks, don't even waste your ink filling out the forms.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I've heard of other housing inspector types who pursued the CCW due to dangerous situations, even though they worked in a government agency type job, they got denied right out of the gate. You say you do it for banks, don't even waste your ink filling out the forms.........

 

That's pretty much what I figured...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, if there is ONE example of anybody getting a permit in NJ because he or she is politically connected, wealthy, etc. and then the whole system is corrupt and should be replaced/tossed out. If there is ONE example of a repeat, violent offender getting a break with a weapons violation, then any citizen should get the same or better when unjustly prosecuted. And, if a judge denies one honest law-abiding citizen the right to self defense, especially if ANY need is presented, then that judge should not have any right for self defense, either, when the clowns that are put away wind up back out on the streets and come a calling. And, any LEO that harasses a law-abiding citizen about the Second Amendment rights, especially a supervisor/chief, should also be denied the right to carry and get some mace. Let the politically connected and rich and powerful and law enforcement be in the same boat as the citizen. Let Christie's bodyguards carry personal alarms.

 

Your average citizen should no longer be treated as second-class. Lets see if the laws aren't changed.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic infuriates me to the point I am considering moving out of the state. I own 2 Pawn Shops and constantly handle/carry large sums of cash and gold . but in this retarded state ,having a way to protect yourself outside of your house or business doesnt apply. I honestly feel jewelry stores and pawn shops are a target for criminals whether it be inside the shop or when closing up for the night and there are other business's that are targets to . I know i will not be issued a CCW so i dont bother. its sad that from what i know there is only a few states that dont issue CCW's to law biding citizens and we are all lucky to live in one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic infuriates me to the point I am considering moving out of the state. I own 2 Pawn Shops and constantly handle/carry large sums of cash and gold . but in this retarded state ,having a way to protect yourself outside of your house or business doesnt apply. I honestly feel jewelry stores and pawn shops are a target for criminals whether it be inside the shop or when closing up for the night and there are other business's that are targets to . I know i will not be issued a CCW so i dont bother. its sad that from what i know there is only a few states that dont issue CCW's to law biding citizens and we are all lucky to live in one of them.

 

Yeah I think it's NJ, NY, and I believe 2 or 3 others. The rest allow it. Unfortunately PA gives them out like candy, but at least they issue them. I seriously feel that they need to either make them like drivers licenses where they are reciprocal or create one national license to carry which would require a $100 charge for FBI background check and filing. I see nothing wrong with that as long as they make it available nationally...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah I think it's NJ, NY, and I believe 2 or 3 others. The rest allow it. Unfortunately PA gives them out like candy, but at least they issue them. I seriously feel that they need to either make them like drivers licenses where they are reciprocal or create one national license to carry which would require a $100 charge for FBI background check and filing. I see nothing wrong with that as long as they make it available nationally...

 

I don't think you really want the Federal government in the business of issuing CCWs, LTCF, or whatever you want to call it. First of all the Feds shouldn't be in that business due to the 10A. However, the Feds could make a law re quiring national reciprocity using the 14A as justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The national reciprocity bill was a big mistake and a federal ccw bill should have been proposed instead. The state reciprocity bill raises issues that federal ccw permiting legislation wouldn't -- specifically that states with stricter laws (eg require training) are being forced to accept the "lowest common denominator." There is ample justification for a federal CCW bill -- the 2A right is an individual, civil right. Just like Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, etc., federal ccw legislation could be seen as protecting a civil right. Federal CCW legislation could be available to anyone who wants to carry nationwide on a shall issue basis, with a training requirement to shut up the people who criticized the reciprocity bill b/c some states don't require training. It wouldn't trump state law -- people would be free to rely on their own state permits (or constitutional carry where that applies) and the current hodge podge reciprocity system. But a federal ccw bill would certainly help people in the "may issue" states and would also streamline the process for those who wanted to be able to carry nationwide without worrying.

 

As for NJ, I'm amazed that no one at least tries to put more pressure on the governor. His deflections -- blaming the current state of affairs on a Democractic legislature -- are nonsense. All he needs to do is issue a directive that carrying for lawful self-defense constutitutes"substantial need". Connecticut is also a "may issue" state but people are routinely granted permits there. We really don't need a lawsuit and a new law -- just a governor and administration that has some balls and the will to do the right thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with GRIZ on this one. Standing case law says that the States have the power to regulate the manner in which firearms are posessed within their borders dating back to the 1800s. (primarily as a measure to keep black people from having weapons) so I'm not sure that an act of legislation could do it. It would require the establishing of new precedent judicially.

 

Furthermore, when you allow the Federal Government to have overarching control over something like this, you run the risk of giving too much power to a centralized authority. What happens when the wrong party is in control of the government and they re-define through "directive" what constitutes "substantial need"? then you've got a national permit rendered null. See Patriot Act and NDAA for examples of unintended consequences and the danger of giving to much power to a centralized authority....when the election comes and the pendulum swings...the guy you don't like has that power to use too.

 

This is a concept that is missed on the left with regards to Universal Healthcare. If you centralize the system away from the States, when a Republican or Conservative government comes into power, they could defund the entitlement. Not exactly the intended consequence.

 

Certainly, this flies in the face of the idea that the individual States mostly infringe upon the 2A in SOME way. some more so than others. The argument can be made that State law regulating arms are trumped by the Constitution. However, standing case law says it doesn't.

 

I have no idea the solution. sticky. sticky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PDM, the hole in making CCW in NJ a 2A issue would depend of another SCOTUS case. They ruled in McDonald that a state can have "reasonable restrictions". You would have to file a case that NJ's requirement to have a "justifiable need" is unconstitutional, loyse it in lower courts and appeal to SCOTUS, who may or may not accept the case. I wouls suspect they would refuse to hear it as that would open them up to taking cases on a variety of states laws to define what a "reasonable restriction" is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yeah I think it's NJ, NY, and I believe 2 or 3 others. The rest allow it. Unfortunately PA gives them out like candy, but at least they issue them.

 

What's that mean? I don't see any epidemic of problems due to LTCF in PA, and we give them out more or less the same as about 40 states do. Curious what bothers you about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you really want the Federal government in the business of issuing CCWs, LTCF, or whatever you want to call it. First of all the Feds shouldn't be in that business due to the 10A. However, the Feds could make a law re quiring national reciprocity using the 14A as justification.

 

I for one, believe the Bill of Rights does apply to all states and the Federal government. Meaning no government can regulate speech, Religious freedom, searches and seizures and this includes regulating firearms. It is very clear that the Bill of Rights are LIMITING what the government can and CAN NOT do!

 

For example: Would it be correct for states and the Federal government to ask for ID, do a background check and ask you to pay $100 per year to have access to the First Amendment? No... that would be silly. The 2A explicitly explains "shall NOT be infringed", so why the regulations? Why the fuss?

 

In actual terms, free speech can be far more dangerous than anything else. Without free speech there can not be discussions, meetings and grassroots movements... there would be no petitioning. There would also be no innovation, ideas and conversation.

 

All of the Bill of Rights are for the citizens and to keep the government from oppressing the good people of this great nation. Because when you look back on history, it's always a BIG, tyrannical government that kills by the millions and not the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at it this way. 90% of federal laws are against the States or the People in favor of the federal government and without any authorization under the Constitution. And almost all of them are not only unauthorized, they are completely illegal.

 

If the next illegal, unauthorized law the federal government were to pass would be in favor of the People at the expense of the States, I would consider it a breath of fresh air.

 

The federal government has become a criminal organization acting outside of any legal authority on a day to day basis. If we are not going to put an end to it, then the winners will be the ones who choose to play ball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governor Christie is against forced reciprocity, BTW., on states rights grounds...

 

Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk 2

 

Governor Christie prefers slaves and subjects to citizens. He can use any excuse he likes, his breath still stinks like BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I for one, believe the Bill of Rights does apply to all states and the Federal government. Meaning no government can regulate speech, Religious freedom, searches and seizures and this includes regulating firearms. It is very clear that the Bill of Rights are LIMITING what the government can and CAN NOT do!

 

For example: Would it be correct for states and the Federal government to ask for ID, do a background check and ask you to pay $100 per year to have access to the First Amendment? No... that would be silly. The 2A explicitly explains "shall NOT be infringed", so why the regulations? Why the fuss?

 

In actual terms, free speech can be far more dangerous than anything else. Without free speech there can not be discussions, meetings and grassroots movements... there would be no petitioning. There would also be no innovation, ideas and conversation.

 

All of the Bill of Rights are for the citizens and to keep the government from oppressing the good people of this great nation. Because when you look back on history, it's always a BIG, tyrannical government that kills by the millions and not the other way around.

 

Mike I agree with your basic premise however you have to recognize the Bill of Rights has regulation written into it. I also agree that the 2A is probably the most over regulated. Some regulation is required in all the amendments.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not for nothing, but how much do they pay you to go into foreclosed houses? Most people I know in that industry do 99% 'drive by's'
Nope. Can't do that. I'm hired to write estimates for the insurance claims submitted for the homes. 90% of those claims are vandalism and stolen copper pipes (wonderful Philadelphia and Camden). So now you see why I wish I could apply and actually get one. If you find me a new job that pays what I'm making I'll gladly switch. lolSent via Tapatalk HD on my iPad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic infuriates me to the point I am considering moving out of the state. I own 2 Pawn Shops and constantly handle/carry large sums of cash and gold . but in this retarded state ,having a way to protect yourself outside of your house or business doesnt apply. I honestly feel jewelry stores and pawn shops are a target for criminals whether it be inside the shop or when closing up for the night and there are other business's that are targets to . I know i will not be issued a CCW so i dont bother. its sad that from what i know there is only a few states that dont issue CCW's to law biding citizens and we are all lucky to live in one of them.

 

I left NJ and gained a hell of a lot more than the ability to carry a gun..

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...