nj ccw question

[djg0770 481]

From what I understand Project Veritas will have that part covered. (but then what?)

 

There are sympathetic ears throughout the country who will trumpet this effort, providing it's a sizable chunk of people.  Here's a short list to start:

 

Ginny Simone - NRA News

Mark Edwards - Armed American Radio

Anthony Colandro & Sandy Berardi - Gun For Hire Radio

Kenn Blanchard - Black Man With A Gun

 

Once you have that covered, and reported by those individuals, then you contact the Mark Levin's, the Glenn Beck's, Fox News, Drudge Report, etc and go from there.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

 

Justifiable need should state the safe and security and well being of myself and family

 

WRONG. there should be no justifiable need. period.

[Se9 0]

But since we have to write something in the space to explain the need the police and judges can deny the ccw but they cannot dismiss the fact that you do not care about the well being and protection of your family

It is a indisputable justification

Remember it is not the job of the police to make u safe

[Norseman 2]

But since we have to write something in the space to explain the need the police and judges can deny the ccw but they cannot dismiss the fact that you do not care about the well being and protection of your family

It is a indisputable justification

Remember it is not the job of the police to make u safe

We definitely have to put something in that field right? If so I think we should agree on something and put it in verbatim. This way if 200 get permits and 800 don't - they can't use what we put in that field to explain why some did and some didn't get approved.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMJeepster 2,778]

How about attaching a copy of the Warren decision?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

[Se9 0]

That's why we have to agree on what should go in the space and we need a legeal expert to help

Obviously if you want to protect your own cash it's not good enuff reason but if you work for a company that is protecting banks and business cash it's ok

[Se9 0]

IMO Glenn beck and others like him need to stay out of it

Those guys are lightning rods for bad press

[45Doll 5,877]

Just to be clear, there is no 'field' on form 642 where you plug in your 'justification'.

 

The header text of the form explains that "Each person applying for a Permit to Carry and (sic) Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey. If this application is employment-related, then your employer must supply this letter."

 

Therefore you can be as brief, or as verbose, as you want.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Obviously if you want to protect your own cash it's not good enuff reason but if you work for a company that is protecting banks and business cash it's ok

Personally, I'm more concerned about protecting my life and the lives of my family.

[louu 399]

IMO Glenn beck and others like him need to stay out of it

Those guys are lightning rods for bad press

Agreed, no one takes those people on Fox news seriously or even listens to them. They will just end up making us look like a bunch of bible thumping, white robe wearing, racists that just want to shoot everything that we don't understand.

[45Doll 5,877]

With respect to 'justifiable need' there are only two strategies to take.

 

1. Accept that you must justify your need, and then try to construct a verbal recipe that you think will convince your local police authority and a judge to grant you CCW.

 

2. Reject that you must justify your need, and then supply the justification for your rejection of that premise.

 

In my view, option 1 plays the state's game; that is to make a judgement based on opinion. It presumes that CCW is a privilege to be granted by judgement of the state. And the reason no one applies for CCW is because they know they will lose that argument; their opinion will not carry any weight.

 

Option 2 rejects the legislature's and administration's authority to transform a right into a privilege. The letter of 'need' would therefore explain why 'justification of need' is (take your pick) illegal, unnatural, immoral, unconsititutional etc. Success with this option would require judicial action to override the administrative and legislative posture in NJ. I don't expect local police authorities and judges to concur. They know they are (currently) in the driver's seat.

 

Given the recent election results, I have no current hope at all that Option 1 will ever succeed. Or that the legislature and administration will change their mind and relax the criteria.

 

Therefore I'm personally pondering Option 2. I have at least my 642 filled out. The accompanying letter is more difficult.

 

Note: Of course there is Option 3: use nepotism, political or financial connection to get a wink and a nod. Not available for most of us.

[Norseman 2]

Just to be clear, there is no 'field' on form 642 where you plug in your 'justification'.

 

The header text of the form explains that "Each person applying for a Permit to Carry and (sic) Handgun must supply a letter of need, specific in content, as to why they have a need to carry a firearm in the State of New Jersey. If this application is employment-related, then your employer must supply this letter."

 

Therefore you can be as brief, or as verbose, as you want.

I see ...didn't know that. So I think we agree though that the "letter of need" attached to the application should then be verbatim what the others are putting and we should get a 2A friendly lawyer help us craft the letter we will use. Do we agree on that? (Any of you watching the thread and not chiming in please feel free to chime in! lol)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Norseman 2]

With respect to 'justifiable need' there are only two strategies to take.

 

1. Accept that you must justify your need, and then try to construct a verbal recipe that you think will convince your local police authority and a judge to grant you CCW.

 

2. Reject that you must justify your need, and then supply the justification for your rejection of that premise.

 

In my view, option 1 plays the state's game; that is to make a judgement based on opinion. It presumes that CCW is a privilege to be granted by judgement of the state. And the reason no one applies for CCW is because they know they will lose that argument; their opinion will not carry any weight.

 

Option 2 rejects the legislature's and administration's authority to transform a right into a privilege. The letter of 'need' would therefore explain why 'justification of need' is (take your pick) illegal, unnatural, immoral, unconsititutional etc. Success with this option would require judicial action to override the administrative and legislative posture in NJ. I don't expect local police authorities and judges to concur. They know they are (currently) in the driver's seat.

 

Given the recent election results, I have no current hope at all that Option 1 will ever succeed. Or that the legislature and administration will change their mind and relax the criteria.

 

Therefore I'm personally pondering Option 2. I have at least my 642 filled out. The accompanying letter is more difficult.

 

Note: Of course there is Option 3: use nepotism, political or financial connection to get a wink and a nod. Not available for most of us.

Can we combine options 1&2 and say something along the lines of:

 

1) because the police are under no obligation to protect the lives of me and my family and I would like the ability to defend our lives if - God forbid - the need occurs and 2) because it is an inherent right of an American and protected by our Constitution.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Can we combine options 1&2 and say something along the lines of:

 

1) because the police are under no obligation to protect the lives of me and my family and I would like the ability to defend our lives if - God forbid - the need occurs and 2) because it is an inherent right of an American and protected by our Constitution.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Take out "like" and use something stronger. 

[45Doll 5,877]

Norseman: yes I concur completely. I think I mentioned something along those lines in a previous post.

 

Those of us who went to Trenton at the beginning of the year all remember the bored looks on the committee faces as we patiently explained the Constitution, natural law, common sense (ours, not theirs) etc.

 

Police chiefs and judges will be just as bored reading it in an attached letter. That's why the letter should specifically call out legal precedents (or similar constructs) that can later be leveraged in a court fight. The real purpose of the letter would be to expose the state's position that what we think is a right, they think is a privilege. After it's been exposed and documented, it can be litigated. And our applications should provide as much ammunition as possible for our side of the court fight.

 

I know I'm not qualified or educated enough to pull that together (this century) so a 2A lawyer with litigation experience would probably be very valuable addition to letter writing.

[Se9 0]

As soon as you put any contex of the constitution into play you are already denied

The judges know the constitution and nj law superceds it that is already been proven justifiable need puts the approval on their side

We need to know the judges names who are given the authority to approve ccw

[CMJeepster 2,778]

"Since the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) holds that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, I choose to exercise my inherent human right of self-defense by keeping and bearing arms as guaranteed to me by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and confirmed by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)."

[Se9 0]

Also getting a drivers license in the state of nj is a privilege

They allow us to purchase and own firearms but they regulate it strictly

The 2a is a right

 

Who gets the ccw application first the police chiefs it the judges

[Se9 0]

Also we must put emphasis on hurricane sandy when the local police were stretched beyond capacity and people looting in south jersey it is our right to protect our selves no matter where we are in the state not just in our home

[Norseman 2]

"Since the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) holds that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, I choose to exercise my inherent human right of self-defense by keeping and bearing arms as guaranteed to me by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and confirmed by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)."

I really like this!!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Thanks.  IANAL, but the keys to these types of things is to keep it simple and direct.  Besides the obvious (to us) language of the 2A, there is also the NJ State Constitution that states the following:

 

"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."

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

[Norseman 2]

All the LEO's in my family and in my circle of friends would lay down their lives to protect innocent people that they don't even know (or even a known criminal for that matter!). My cousin is a cop and when I was looking to join the force he explained it to me like this: if you want to be a cop you need to accept that you would lay down your life for the biggest dirt bag you know if it came down to it.

 

So I have nothing but the utmost respect for anyone in law enforcement especially the ones who think like my cousin. Unfortunately there's not enough law enforcement to keep us all safe 100% of the time from the criminals - and that is why I feel so passionate about us doing this in getting back our right to defend our lives.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Old Glock guy 1,127]

"Since the decision in Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) holds that police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, I choose to exercise my inherent human right of self-defense by keeping and bearing arms as guaranteed to me by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and confirmed by District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)."

 

 

I like this as well.  It cites legal precedent, and does not try to grovel to NJ's requirement for unique "justifiable need."

 

But I'm still not sure what our course of action will be.  We get lots of denials, ideally 1000's.  We publicize it via Project Veritas or something similar.

Then what?  The way I see it, we can either:

 

1.) Hope that legislators are so embarrassed by their stance, that they decide to immediately pass legislation to allow concealed carry.

(I'm not betting on this one.)  Or,

2.) We petition the courts for an order to allow concealed carry.  Can we do that?  Can the AG issue an executive order at our request?

 

So while I'm all for this, what's our next move after the mass rejections and publicity?

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Not to get too deep here, but a post-Heller case discussion by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV found in US v. Arzberger, 592 F. Supp. 2d 590 - 2008 reads that "...obviously just the general risk that any gun owner may misuse his guns can't be enough..."

[Se9 0]

Lawsuits usually get their attention especially discrimination lawsuits

[1LtCAP 4,264]

We definitely have to put something in that field right? If so I think we should agree on something and put it in verbatim. This way if 200 get permits and 800 don't - they can't use what we put in that field to explain why some did and some didn't get approved.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

THIS is a good idea.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

As soon as you put any contex of the constitution into play you are already denied

The judges know the constitution and nj law superceds it that is already been proven justifiable need puts the approval on their side

We need to know the judges names who are given the authority to approve ccw

why is it that when it's convenient that nj law trumps federal law, and when it's not, it doesn't. actually......how do EITHER of them trump the constitution? or have i been "asleep" for too long?

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Hell, we could even get into the fact that to practice a Constitutional right we have to pay fees (FPID, P2P, NICS).  Does one have to pay a fee to practice a religion or speak freely?

 

The more I read McDonald, the angrier I get that we can't use it to make our case here.

 

It will be interesting to see how Illinois goes starting in January.

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Lawsuits usually get their attention especially discrimination lawsuits

We'll see in January with SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[maintenanceguy 510]

If the intent is to get rid of the justifiable need requirement than there is no "right" answer as to what is justifiable need.  A thousand people with a thousand different "needs" including the right to self protection, the right to exercise a constitutional right, my ex husband is violent, or anything else is a fine "justifiable need". 

 

The goal is to get denied, not to wow them with our amazing need to carry a firearm.   The story is that 1000 NJ residents were denied a right.  Nobody reporting on this, or sifting through applications is going to care what our need is.  Because currently ,no need is sufficient.