Here is a good take on the situation from a thread on ar15.com about the NY restrictions but applies to N.J. as well:
"What you are seeing is what has happened in every other state that has passed shall-issue concealed carry. Not to the extent NY is going but similar. The people inconvenienced will complain and changes will be made. Then lawsuits will happen and then more changes are made. Then as people adjust to the idea of "people walking around carrying hidden guns" more changes will occur. My state has had concealed carry for decades and we are still tweaking the law."
"Back in 2000 when Michigan was trying to go from may-issue to shall-issue we had a state level pro-gun organization trying to kill the bill for the exact same reasons you mentioned. The people with connections had permits and very few restrictions. They threw a fit that going to shall-issue would result in a more involved process, a higher fee, and more restrictions on where they could carry. They had the "I got mine, fuck everyone else" attitude that you seem to have. Shall issue passed, barely. Counties like Wayne County, where Detroit is, dug their feet in and refused to issue any permits for almost a year. Multiple lawsuits had to be filed against them. The legislature has gone back many times to tweak the law, remove restrictions, and make other changes to improve things".
"Baby steps, just like how the Dems take away our rights, is how you get the restrictions removed. The big hurdle is getting shall-issue allowed. That is still a huge win for NY. Then you go back and get the restrictions removed".
He’s certainly trying to.
Yes. It means new lawsuits to challenge the new rules. They don’t go directly to scotus though. Start with the lower courts first. In theory those courts should use Bruen as a guide and nuke them there. In theory.
The bill states that following under the amendments section: " This act shall take effect 1[immediately] on the first day of the seventh month next following the date of enactment, except the Attorney General may take such anticipatory administrative action in advance as shall be necessary for the implementation of this act1." Is this replacing "immediately" with the underlined text or is it the other way around?