New Jersey Firearm Purchase and Permitting Study Commission: Report is out

[1LtCAP 4,262]

You don't petition Christie. You petition RNC, you petition his presidential primary adversaries, you petition NH gun organizations, you petition the media in key primary states, you petition strong-2A AGs in key election states, and you petition the NJ media (including 101.5) because every NJ media organization would love to expose Christie for making invalid excuses.

ok. whomever we need to petition, we do it. then we get the justifiable need changed, or better yet eliminated. he listens to the people. now, the same question stands.

[Stonecoldchavez 92]

Maybe I am a little dense.....please explain to me how begging Christie to change "justifiable need" in 2016 is going to help us come 2017 when Sweeney is governor? Won't Sweeney reverse Christie's EO?

 

Also, 2016 is already here, God only knows if or when Christie is going to have Hoffman look at justifiable need and direct the SP to redefine it. Don't we know or think the legislature would stall and use delay tactics until 2017 to not get this implemented? Methinks they are in no rush to address "justifiable need". Think Sweeney, Lesniak, Wineberg are going to go away quietly?

 

To me, it is quite easy and simple to give us CCW in NJ. Just use our FID as the CCW permit. No need to reinvent to the wheel with the SP to come up with a permitting system. We have all been vetted and had background checks. No added cost to taxpayers. No need to " delay" because they don't have a system in place.

 

Additionally, does anyone realize how much it will cost to retrain and change the mentality of NJ LEO's regarding CCW? Just like Texas is retraining LEO's to deal with open carry now. We are just 50 years behind the times regarding ccw.

 

IMHO,

S.

[mipafox 438]

ok. whomever we need to petition, we do it. then we get the justifiable need changed, or better yet eliminated. he listens to the people. now, the same question stands.

What question?

[1LtCAP 4,262]

What question?

1LtCAP, on 25 Dec 2015 - 09:51 AM, said:

suppose christy did/could eo it. he changes justifiable need to include self defense, and instructs judges to issue for that. now we all run out and get our ccw's. in 2017 sweeny is given governorship. we all know his attitudes. he rescinds christy's eo. what now?

[JohnnyB 4,323]

suppose christy did/could eo it. he changes justifiable need to include self defense, and instructs judges to issue for that. now we all run out and get our ccw's. in 2017 sweeny is given governorship. we all know his attitudes. he rescinds christy's eo. what now?

My guess would be, once given CCW by Christie, (in our dreams) It would be more difficult for Sweeney to take it away than we would think! How many states that had CCW have lost their rights in recent history?

[mipafox 438]

Let me make sure I got this straight. Don't bother fighting for our rights because somebody might take them away in the future?

 

Only in Jersey.

 

And JohnnyB nailed it.

 

This shit is bordering on the absurd. 47 states let their Citizens carry. Jersey has become such an issue that other states forced Jersey to adopt a policy of letting people from other states off for carrying guns because they can't withstand the negative publicity. Jersey subjects still go to jail for 5 to 10 years. Christie is changing "justifiable need" and saying he can't change justifiable need.

 

Are you fucking kidding me?

 

This is a house of cards and you need to knock it down while Christie is still campaigning.

[Newtonian 453]

Let me make sure I got this straight. Don't bother fighting for our rights because somebody might take them away in the future?

...

This is a house of cards and you need to knock it down while Christie is still campaigning.

Pure smarts from the Prince of the Pokies, the Sage of Scot Run, the Liege of Lehigh. I could go on and on.

[Newtonian 453]

suppose christy did/could eo it. he changes justifiable need to include self defense, and instructs judges to issue for that. now we all run out and get our ccw's. in 2017 sweeny is given governorship. we all know his attitudes. he rescinds christy's eo. what now?

This, from the chicken little school of "I don't want things to improve in any way because....because I have a photo of Christie with Obama, and he favored the AWB in 1993, and the next governor will (fill in the blank)."

 

What now? I'll tell you what now. They'll have to create new law to prevent "we all" from renewing. They'll have to take the permits from everyone, including the judges and retired cops and Bruce Fucking Springsteen who can no longer meet the JN standard, or there will be a huge equal-protection lawsuit. Which we should already have filed based on the nonexistent cases of those three royal classes of NJ resident, who live behind the firewalls of privilege and money, actually using their firearms in self defense.

 

Speaking of which when was the last time you read a headline along the lines of, "Retired NJ Superior Court Judge kills would-be attacker"?? Never. So they don't really need guns do they? Let them call 911 like the rest of us.

[JohnnyB 4,323]

↑↑↑↑THIS↑↑↑↑ We need to keep the pressure ON!

 

Right now Christie is our best hope! We need to keep pushing him hard.

[JohnnyB 4,323]

An interesting read from the Liberal Harvard Law Review.... http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/good-cause-requirements-for-carrying-guns-in-public/

[oldguysrule649 397]

I highly recommend listening to Thursday's Bear Arms Show podcast. On it, Dan Schmutter the gun rights attorney provides an excellent analysis of the committee report as related to JN. He provides the legal rationale for why they recommended what they did and not a more significant change. It seems the executive branch is limited in what they can redefine.

[siderman 1,137]

I highly recommend listening to Thursday's Bear Arms Show podcast. On it, Dan Schmutter the gun rights attorney provides an excellent analysis of the committee report as related to JN. He provides the legal rationale for why they recommended what they did and not a more significant change. It seems the executive branch is limited in what they can redefine.

 

http://www.beararmsshow.com/   interview starts about 6:30 and lasts a bit more than 1/2 hr.

 

Thanks! indeed very informative and explains a lot. Also mentioned that Scott Bach was on last week too.....

[Zeke 5,504]

I highly recommend listening to Thursday's Bear Arms Show podcast. On it, Dan Schmutter the gun rights attorney provides an excellent analysis of the committee report as related to JN. He provides the legal rationale for why they recommended what they did and not a more significant change. It seems the executive branch is limited in what they can redefine.

Thank you!

I didn't know about this podcast!

Yes very informative.

 

 

It's always better to make friends, some guys( anti gun politicos) just aren't worth the time; Sweeney,Weinberg etc

[Newtonian 453]

An interesting read from the Liberal Harvard Law Review.... http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/good-cause-requirements-for-carrying-guns-in-public/

 

Johnny there's a specific point in that article that bothers me:

 

The extreme position holds that any kind of good cause requirement is unconstitutional.  As one district court judge put it, “[a] citizen may not be required to offer a ‘good and substantial reason’ why he should be permitted to exercise his rights.  The right’s existence is all the reason he needs.” When framed this way, the point is rhetorically powerful, but substantively weak.  Surely not every “cause” is “good” enough to trigger Second Amendment coverage.  If a person turned in a concealed-carry application with the explanation, “I need to carry a gun in public so that I can hijack a plane with it,” few would think that denying the license would violate his Second Amendment rights.  It is not clear why the result would be any different if the insufficient cause were conveyed through evidence other than an outright declaration.

 

The writer is clearly confusing two vastly different ideas. One is the very notion of RIGHT. The other is a stated intention (or obvious intention) to commit a crime. 

 

Let me use NJ knife law, which is based on circumstance and obvious intent as I understand it, as an example.

 

You can carry mostly any knife in this state. I believe gravity knives are on the banned list but that's irrelevant.

 

When I pull out my pocket knife at ShopRite to rip open the packet of sanitary wipes it doesn't matter if that knife happens to be a spring-assisted knife or a Swiss Army knife or a sharpened house key or a Bowie knife. All are legal (but I wouldn't bet that I wouldn't be arrested if a state cop walked in at the same time, even if I was using a house key.) But If I then walk to the courtesy counter, knife in hand, demanding money, I would and I should be arrested for among other things weapon possession.

 

In general that summarizes gun law in 40+ states (with the exception of requiring permits at all). The article argues for a premise that is one of the 4-5 prime false presumptions of those who seek to control access to guns.

 

Now that I think about it, gun prohibition laws always violate 2nd amendment rights. Always. Gun charges are equivalent to "hate crime" laws. If you kill somebody, with a gun or a knife or a foot, whether you hate them for their race or they're your twin brother, you should be executed regardless of how you committed the crime. Wow. An epiphany. 

[Newtonian 453]

http://www.beararmsshow.com/   interview starts about 6:30 and lasts a bit more than 1/2 hr.

 

Thanks! indeed very informative and explains a lot. Also mentioned that Scott Bach was on last week too.....

Real good observations and commentary. Everyone should listen to it. 

[John Willett 70]

Hi guys!

 

Glad to see you found my interview with Dan Schmutter helpful.  It was largely premised on the interview in our prior episode with Scott Bach.  Scott and I recorded the day the report was released, so it was his first impressions of the report.

 

If you are on iTunes, and could rate the show or leave a review, it would be really helpful!  

 

https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/bear-arms-show-2nd-amendment/id952321277?mt=2

 

Thanks! 

[jackandjill 683]

Thanks for arranging this. Got lot of good & specific info from this.  I understand little better what MaintenanceGuy was saying in earlier thread about 1971 case and NJSP regulation, and why Mr. Christie may have made comments about EO. 

 

I like the way Dan reasoned for optimism,  but there were cases where NJ Courts simply ignored the later part of that sentence (where the change is made) and suggested the applicant to either move or find other means to feed his family. 

 

Time will tell what happens with this.