nj ccw question

[Luso 6]

That's exactly what's happening now.  If you apply for it you will be denied for non criminal reasons.  It will happen because it is happening.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I was referring to Newtonian's theoretical scenario where if you apply and are rejected, that you would not be able to reapply in the future if they did pass CCW later on. They can deny your right (unjustly) but what I am saying is they can not deny you the opportunity to apply. Just like you can't be denied the opportunity to reapply after a failed driver's test

[Luso 6]

I was making a theoretical point. The question is on the handgun purchase application for a reason, presumably.

 

As for it being illegal, well, legal is what the law says is legal. What they're doing now strikes me as illegal as well.

 

I don't know the best strategy for getting concealed carry in this state. We have brilliant lawyers working on it, so far unsuccessfully. If anything we're going backwards. These laws have been on the books since the 1920s. 

I hear you. All I am saying is my contention is waiting on esteemed lawyers, that godsend politician, that aligning of the moon and stars...it's a waste of time, in my opinion. It's not necessary to wait for someone else to do something. And you can have the best lawyers in the world - when you have corrupt, statist judges on the bench, the flowery rhetoric and lofty ideals of a phenomenal lawyer will not matter whatsoever. When the legislature is this stacked against you and they have no incentive to support any legislation we would desire regarding CCW, no amount of money, lawyers, or politicking will win the day. Yesterday's election results should be all the proof you need that going the route of democracy in this state is an utter waste of your time, and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel like waiting around every election on the off chance enough sympathetic politicians get elected each cycle to see if I should start demanding a right.

 

We are sitting here feeling sorry for ourselves, because we know IF we ask for permission to do something, THEN they are going to say no. All I am saying initially, is to advance the conversation past this point of just "knowing they will say no". What I am saying is, make them say no definitively. Right now, we aren't even doing this.

 

If you get them to say no to 10,000 citizens, you can start using that to your advantage. You can cite it in future court cases. You can get civil rights groups to make noise. You can paint the politicians as anti-(fill in the blank, gays, blacks, women, hispanics, etc). You can begin pressuring, You can't demand something if you aren't being denied it. 

 

Think about that. In the most literal sense, on the books, we have the ability to apply for ccw, and NO ONE has been DENIED that right (except pantano pretty much). Just because we know we will be denied, doesn't mean that we were. That is an important distinction in this conversation.

 

I guarantee you if some civil rights group starts clamoring about racism after all these denials, and you show people getting murdered on the streets because they were defenseless and no cops were in sight, you start to make them DEFEND their position. Right now, they are defending nothing, and they are happy with that.

 

This mall shooting at the GSP is a great opportunity to force these politicians to say, essentially "sorry, I would rather you die individually, than endanger the greater collective". That is the message that we need to draw out of them, you can put words in their mouth. Because at the end of the day, these cowards run to Trenton behind metal detectors and 50 armed state troopers, and tell us in Paterson that we better not have any guns on us. How can you not see the incredible opportunity here?

 

This is an opportunity to put words in these politicians mouths, and the beauty is those words are whatever you want them to be:

 

"If gun free zones are good enough for my kids, than disarm all the state troopers in the state house protecting you IMMEDAITELY"

"Why do politicians get CCW permits, but I can not get one to protect my children. Are you insinuating your life is more valuable than my child's? ANSWER THE QUESTION - (weinberg, cunningham, sweeney, mainor, etc)"

"why is the state systematically discriminating against (insert minority) in paterson camden and newark, where violent crime is higher than anywhere else?? Do you WANT to have as many (insert minority group) as possible dead? Why do you hate (insert minority group)???!! are you racist? If you don't hate (insert minority group) stop letting them get killed on the streets"

"Women are 1000xs more likely to be raped by a man, than a man by a woman. Why do you insist on keeping women disarmed. You must be pro-rape? Why are you anti-choice on women defending themselves! Her body, her choice!"

 

Do you see this? It's the same nonsense they use. You throw it at them enough and it changes the conversation. It's easy for a NJ politician to deflect guns, because no one gives a crap about guns in this state. But they SURE AS HELL give a crap about (insert whatever disadvantaged, class warfare-driven group you choose) 

 

 

Get them on the record, let them say no, then call them racists until we are blue in the face. Because deep down, they are elitist scum. They don't care if you die. They don't care if your kid gets shot. They don't think your wife is worthy of being protected. So long as THEY have guns protecting THEM and their friends wherever they go, to hell with YOU. Now let's get them to respond to that

[louu 399]

Right on man!!!

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Luso, I'm with you. We can sit around thinking up all kinds of negative scenarios. Or we can take action.

 

I suggested involvement with NJ2AS because even though we would be a grassroots movement, they could provide some organization; and I believe that is a cause that they would like to get involved in anyway. I agree that the time is right for this. Why continue to procrastinate? Let's force their hand and see what happens. Worst case is we need to add another line of explanation to future P2P's.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

When is the Pantano case set to be heard/tried?  Is it too late to make a difference?  If not then why not contact his attorney, Evan Nappen, and see if he would be speak to an audience on the topic.

 

As far as organizing a movement we have all the power to do so.  This forum has hundred of members and I'm sure there are other NJ based pro-firearm forums that have hundreds of members....and all those members probably shoot at a gun club/range.  Why not get organized, choose a date and have several hundred people apply for a CCW.

 

Their reason for applying is that due to recent violent public events they are concerned about their individual safety and they feel they require a CCW to have the ability to protect themselve while in public.

 

I'm new to firearms, as are many on this forum.  I've never heard of the Pantano case and I'm sure that many others haven't eithter.  I haven't applied for a CCW for exactly the reasons cited....'Why bother, you'll just get turned down."  I think we all need to start talking with our shooting buddies and ask if the've heard of the case and what do they think about trying to do something/getting organized.

 

I'm going to do just that right now.....IM 3 people you know on the forum and ask them if they have heard about this case.  Ask them what they think....get a discussion going.  Link this thread in your IM to them....

[Luso 6]

Most people on this forum will probably know about the case, there are a few threads on it if you search from the main page. Basically, a business owner in Manalapan filed for the permit, the local chief signed off, and then the court denied him for not having justifiable need. Simple enough.

 

I know NJ2AS filed an Amicus brief with the court, and they have emailed about it (I'm a member)

 

We should ask the NJ2AS leadership to get on board with this, as they themselves were looking to do this sometime ago. There is no better time. It should be done BEFORE Pantano gets heard in court so the lawyers have even more ammunition for their testimony. 

[gleninjersey 2,141]

Most people on this forum will probably know about the case, there are a few threads on it if you search from the main page. Basically, a business owner in Manalapan filed for the permit, the local chief signed off, and then the court denied him for not having justifiable need. Simple enough.

 

I know NJ2AS filed an Amicus brief with the court, and they have emailed about it (I'm a member)

 

We should ask the NJ2AS leadership to get on board with this, as they themselves were looking to do this sometime ago. There is no better time. It should be done BEFORE Pantano gets heard in court so the lawyers have even more ammunition for their testimony. 

 

I didn't know about it.  I'm sure there are many others that don't as well.

 

I just IMed six people I have met & shot with since joining the forum.  If 2 of them read the link and hadn't heard of the case and forward it on to six (or whatever number) of people they know and ask them if they have heard about it and 1 or two of them haven't and do the same......well, you get the picture.

 

I encourage everyone to do the same.  Many on here are new to firearms and may not know about this.  Reach to your shooting buddies, especially the newbies you've met and shared your guns with and inform them....it takes less than 15 mintues and even a caveman can do it! 

[Luso 6]

It all starts with changing the phrase from "we accept 99.9% of the applicants" (therefore there is no issue) 

 

to

 

"we unfortunately have to reject 98% of the applicants due to them not having a justifiable need for protection"

 

now they look like tyrants. 

 

suddenly, if there is something that is a "right" that 98% of the population can not attain for no reason beyond a judge's discretion, it ceases to be a "right" and it becomes impossible for the politicians to call it that. May Issue is a joke. NJ is NO ISSUE, and this would make that very clear

 

I guarantee, just doing that alone, without any of the mudslinging I've mentioned above, would make a HUGE difference right away in the conversation on the subject. They would never be able to say again 'You DO have the right, just apply for it" it ceases to be a "right" completely

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

IANAL, but I don't see any reason for us to assume that the Pantano case is going to help us. In the most likely outcome, the court will rule that he has no justifiable need, and the status quo will be maintained; or, they will say that his need is justified, but the ruling will be very narrow and specific, so it will have no bearing on the rest of us.

So there is no sense waiting for that to play out, IMHO. We should just make plans to go ahead with something similar to what Luso has outlined. And the sooner the better.

[Luso 6]

IANAL, but I don't see any reason for us to assume that the Pantano case is going to help any affect on the far of us. In the most likely outcome, the court will rule that he has no justifiable need, and the status quo will be maintained; or, they will sat that his need is justified, but the ruling will be very narrow and specific, so it will have no bearing on the rest of us.

 

So there is no sense waiting for that to play out, IMHO. We should just make plans to go ahead with something similar to what Luso has outlined. And the sooner the better.

I agree with you. I would guess that the case will likely fail at the state level, and hopefully then gets escalated to the SCOTUS

 

However, changing the statistics beforehand would definitely bolster Nappen's arguments during the case itself. It would make it very clear it is not a right and that the majority of non-criminal citizens who are seeking it are systematically being discriminated against

[gleninjersey 2,141]

I agree with you. I would guess that the case will likely fail at the state level, and hopefully then gets escalated to the SCOTUS

 

However, changing the statistics beforehand would definitely bolster Nappen's arguments during the case itself. It would make it very clear it is not a right and that the majority of non-criminal citizens who are seeking it are systematically being discriminated against

 

Exactly.  From my very limited reading the majority of the defense of the state seems to be "We approve 95% of concealed weapon permits." so therefore there isn't a problem.... and no need to change the law.

 

Of course the percentage is so high because ordinary citizens feel that they will just be rejected so why bother?  Well, start bothering!  Anyone who wants to have the ability to be able to defend themselves, God forbid they should ever need to do so, should spread the word that EVERY such person needs to apply for a CCW permit.

 

Once the percentage changes from "We approve 95%." to "We only approve 5%" then there is an issue and it needs to be addressed. 

 

This situation is very similar to one of the reasons I never applied for my FID years and years ago.  I was incorrectly told that it was going to cost me several hundred dollars in application fees and costs just to apply for a FID.  So my attiutde was that while I would have liked to apply for a FID and purchase a gun, why bother if it is so cost prohibitive? 

 

Many years later, after speaking with a the wife of a very profirearms family I was told the exact opposite.....that in fact it only cost about $75 ($50 finger printing, $18, background check and $2 per pistol permit) and that she used a gun to scare off burglars that had broken into her house while just she and her 2 small children were home......changed my attitiude.  A few months later I had my FID and first firearm.

 

It is our responsibility as responsible firearm owners to counter such misinformation and manipulation of "information that everyone knows". 

 

So please, reach out to your friends on this and any other NJ firearm forum and let people know.

[mipafox 438]

I'm honestly starting to think you should do it. Waiting for the right time is obviously BS at this point, it's not coming. Somebody just has to get started and then try to get more people on board.

 

We should be doing everything we can to bring attention to this nonsense. If lots of people start applying, it may not change the ruling of a court, but it will change the way people look at the issue. Right now it's a constituency of zero on paper.

 

Further, with nobody applying, nobody is running into interesting little quirks or unconstitutional unfortunate statements and admissions by the legal system that might be actionable. Or damages after being denied, for that matter. With nobody applying very few have standing. One of you guys could hit the discrimination jackpot.

 

Heck, there might be a judge that finally decides this is BS and starts issuing, causing a constitutional crisis or conflict of court rulings.

 

The only thing for sure is nothing will change if nothing changes. And every hope we have hung our hats on has failed. It's been run nearly to completion. What now, wait for more Obama appointed federal judges and whatever nonsense he does on his way out? I think the time is now.

[Newtonian 453]

OK, Phosgene. I take the bait. Any good links to applying, or should I just google it?

[vladtepes 1,060]

if it is a "mall" or something like that.. where the owner of the business you work for does not own the building.. that is going to be a bigger hurdle... in states where guns are actually allowed many private businesses on private property still have a no guns policy... there are even some instances where stores that have historically allowed guns even open carry do NOT allow it at certain locations because it is attached to something like a mall... 

 

it is very unlikely you can get both your employer AND the owner of the property to agree to allow you to be armed... and to take it a step further armed during work...

 

I am sure there are an absurd amount of liability issues as well... 

 

 

not saying it is impossible.. but IMO pretty unlikely... 

[mipafox 438]

 

OK, Phosgene. I take the bait. Any good links to applying, or should I just google it?

 

 

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you think I want to sell you something for money. Is that what you think?

[Newtonian 453]

   

 

I'm not sure I understand. It sounds like you think I want to sell you something for money. Is that what you think?

Not at all. I will take up the challenge and apply for a concealed carry permit. Was just asking for help/links. I can find them myself!

[Luso 6]

reaching out to the local groups to see if they are willing to coordinate applications in mass numbers 

 

I would be curious to hear what reservations they may have, and what their alternative plans would be for succeeding with ccw in NJ

[ogfarmer 138]

NJ2AS is working on something like this and was put on hold till after the elections. If your not a member maybe consider joining to stay in the loop of whats going on.

[mipafox 438]

 

NJ2AS is working on something like this and was put on hold till after the elections. If your not a member maybe consider joining to stay in the loop of whats going on.

 

 

It will be on hold for the next 10 years.

 

If you are a member, tell them there has never been a better time than now and time is short.

[gleninjersey 2,141]

How about using New Years Day as the day to encourage people to go apply  We could encourage everyone to go starting New Years Day to usher in a new year, and hopefully, a new era. 

 

I would be interested in participating.  I have been thinking about doing it for some time but never had because of the oft cited, "Why bother, you are just going to get turned down." thinking/mentality.

[BD104X 1]

How about using New Years Day as the day to encourage people to go apply We could encourage everyone to go starting New Years Day to usher in a new year, and hopefully, a new era.

 

I would be interested in participating. I have been thinking about doing it for some time but never had because of the oft cited, "Why bother, you are just going to get turned down." thinking/mentality.

Agreed.

[Luso 6]

Waiting is dumb. What we are waiting I will never understand.

 

I like the New Years idea. Everyone. Should start prepping their paperwork for the new year

[Newtonian 453]

New York State (outside of NYC), "SAFE ACT" notwithstanding, issues carry permits as long as applicants pass residency and training requirements. They issue restricted (mostly for hunting; easier to get) and unrestricted (like most other states', with similar limits) permits. 

 

When they ask the applicant why he needs a permit, the correct response (from a NY State gun board) is "for all legal purposes." If you put down "self defense" many counties will not grant you the permit. 

 

So, can anyone think of a clever definition of "need" that takes in everything but does not lead them to believe we're going to shoot the next dog that poops on our lawn? If any lawyers are reading this please chime in. I think we should all put down similar or identical reasons.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

So, can anyone think of a clever definition of "need" that takes in everything but does not lead them to believe we're going to shoot the next dog that poops on our lawn? If any lawyers are reading this please chime in. I think we should all put down similar or identical reasons.

 

I've been thinking this exact same thing.  We should put our heads together to come up with a carefully worded response that we can all use.

I don't want to be so presumptuous as to believe that I have the correct response, but as a starting point, I was thinking of something like this:

 

"In light of the recent number of mass shootings, including the scare in Paramus, New Jersey, I no longer feel safe; so I respectfully request that I be allowed to protect myself and my family, as is my natural right which is protected by the Second Amendment and is recognized by most of the other states in our nation."

 

I realize that runs on a bit, but its just something off the top of my head that might provide a starting point.

[djg0770 481]

Citing the 2nd amendment to the constitution in NJ is a losing proposition.

 

However using a portion of the following might be a good intro:

 

 

ARTICLE I
                                   

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
   1.   All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. 

 

Specifically the underlined portions.

[Newtonian 453]

Cornerstone and Addict,

 

Sorry but all that stuff has been tried, numerous times, unsuccessfully. No second amendment, no natural rights. You might as well mention the man in the moon for all they care. Something catchy, legalese-ish, unthreatening.

[Luso 6]

Newtonian is correct

 

Also, there is the provision of "imminent danger". That is the other line you would have to satisfy, in their eyes

[brocglock23 4]

Gentlemen, I agree with mipafox. Now has never been a better time. I am hoping to get a thread started where members of this forum can know who lives in their home towns and get together at the same time and do it together. There is strength in numbers and I believe right after the new year is a perfect time so stats don't get screwed with as the year changes. Anyone agree with this? I will make time if you guys will. I'm a sucker for peer pressure

 

droid maxx is way better than the note 2

 

 

[gleninjersey 2,141]

Far from perfect but how is this for a start:

 

In response to recent public mass shootings, in particular the recent event of an armed person walking into Paramus Mall and opening fire, I feel it necessary to be able to defend my life and the lives of my family in a reasonable manner.

 

Newtonian, we know it has been tried numerous times.  The point is if the numbers go from the State approves almost all requests for CCW to the State approving a much, much lower percentage of such requests.  It can then be brought to attention that NJ isn't really issuing any CCW permits excepy to a privleged class (armed security guards, etc) and the ordinary citizens are having their rights violated by the law.

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

Well then perhaps I am misunderstanding out approach. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think this is about finding a new, clever wording to describe "justifiable need.". I believe that just about every approach has been tried and rejected in the past.

 

The way I'm reading this, our strategy is to request (or demand) en masse that we be allowed to exercise our Constitutionally protected right to self defense. I would be shocked if they turned around and said, "Sure, OK, no problem." More likely, we will all be rejected, but then we will have the numbers and the ammunition to show that our rights are being categorically denied. They will no longer be able to stand behind the statistical sham that 98% of applicants are receiving their permits.