DirtyDigz

Compile the denials as a direct rebuttal to the "99% approved" argument, and start a new suit or sign on as additional plaintiffs to an existing suit. Do people have the money? Can't answer that one, but the more who sign on to one case, the cheaper it is for all. Or we can continue to just bitch and moan on forums and facebook, readily poke holes in anyone else's efforts but never make any efforts of our own.

Uh, isn't that the immediate goal? To get a denial? As I see it, the goal of this "movement" is to kill the state's misleading argument that "99% of CCW applications are granted" that they've used in previous cases. I haven't seen anyone arguing that coordinating a mass CCW application is going to result in most applicants getting a CCW immediately. The denial is EXPECTED.

In my view, it doesn't matter if local LEO or county judge or state judge denies it. The denial will be documented and admissible as evidence that "self defense" (or whatever term is agreed upon to use in this effort) is not considered J.N. in New Jersey.

Taurus Judge or Chiappa Rhino. Get your freak on.

I was also going to suggest forming a club, but rather than petition Rutgers for a range, approach private ranges and ask if they'd be willing to offer a club discount while pointing out to them that the club can bring brand new shooters into their facility; it could be a cheap(er) form of advertising for the range, and new shooters can be the most profitable ones for ranges/stores.

Oh FFS...you know, I'm surprised that pictures of IDPA matches with no-shoot targets didn't show up on MSNBC with B.S. click-bait headlines like "Gun Nuts now using targets that represent Michael Brown protestors"

NRA and Lawmakers will fight ATF M855 ban: http://bearingarms.com/confirmed-nra-lawmakers-will-fight-atfs-m855-rifle-ammunition-ban/

The ATF was beaten back on another bogus interpretation of their rules early last year; ATF ruled that a muzzle device was a "silencer" without even investigating if it lowered the sound of shots. The manufacturer sued the ATF, won, and got their interpretation overturned. I wonder if an ammo manufacturer can follow the same path...: http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/03/20/66348.htm

Most comprehensive writeup I've seen yet on this situation, including history of how the ATF has twisted the "armor piercing" designation previously for other calibers: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/robert-farago/atf-ban-on-m855-ammunition-the-real-issue-and-the-real-answer/

My understanding is that the composition of the TWL was originally intended to be kept secret, so that a terrorist will not know if he/she is on the list until they actually attempt to fly. This was before the TWL started to experience "mission creep". Yes, I agree - if there was a clear process that did not leave the decision entirely to one sub-branch of the government with no oversight, regulation, accountability or penalties for abuse of process then I might be more open to the idea. Yep, don't get bent out of shape. Strong opinions, acerbic manners and general grouchiness have been a part of every gun forum I've seen. Welcome, by the way!

Is that only for NJ background checks?

Soooooo this. Please show me the detailed due process for determining who is added to TWL and the process for appealing an unjustified addition. Hypothetical - say that this passes, and the TWL becomes part of the background check for firearms purchases without any reforms or oversight on how the list is compiled or the process for appealing being placed on the list. The government would then have a nearly unregulated and un-appealable mechanism for denying firearm purchases. Go directly to denied background checks, do not pass Judge, do not pass Jury. Did you buy more than 1,000 rounds last year, or did you purchase a lot of powder, primer and reloading components? Possible domestic terrorist, on the TWL you go. Do you already have "too many" firearms, or did you buy more than a certain amount in a certain period of time? Possible domestic terrorist, on the TWL you go. Are you active with the "wrong" political organizations, or do you make blog/facebook posts critical of the gov't? To the TWL with you, you terr'ist! Never happen? Sure, just like the gov't will never traffic firearms to cartels, will never use the IRS as a political pawn, and will never intercept domestic communications or insert cryptographic backdoors into domestic communications infrastructure.

Have one also - they're decent quality but small carrying capacity in my view - barely enough volume in the main compartment to hold 2 sets of eyes and ears for range time.

Primary Arms: https://www.primaryarms.com/Inforce_Rifle_and_Carbine_Weapon_Mount_Light_WMLx_p/inf-wmlx-b-w.htm Usually runs $159.99.

As soon as you remove the set of people who are applying because they're employed as security/armored car guards or with law enforcement history that percentage goes way down.

A nascent effort along those lines is underway (and it appears, also by Mr. Almeida): http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/74413-nj-carry-license-survey/ Have you filled out the survey diamondd817?

Have paid for an appleseed, waiting for available time to take it. Will be using irons when I do.

And it will be the 2nd time, that I know of, that a CCW application had to go to appeals and then was granted coincidentally after it started to gain national attention. At some point that starts to get embarrassing for the state. "NJ doesn't inhibit the right to carry; look, it's just that 100% of non-LEO/security guard/politically connected applications have to go through an initial denial/appeals process before justifiable need is demonstrated" Even if it's just building a case history, it's still something.

If nothing else it can build case history. You're not going to convince me this is a net negative. From what I can see of the SAF they don't do lots of "one-offs". And the SAF themselves say:

Here is one filing that is available online: https://www.facebook.com/download/623496711073452/Albert%20Almeida%20brief%20CCW.pdf As far as I can tell the action is to grant Almeida a CCW, but arguments about the unconstitutionality of justifiable need are raised frequently in the complaint.

+1 on this. Have this on my 870, and looking to replace the mesa side saddle on my Benelli M2 with a velcro/card setup instead.

They need a plaintiff, just like Heller v. D.C. needed one. Did Heller v. D.C. end up only benefiting Heller? Not sure why you're so myopic on this - at *worst* it might just benefit Almeida. I see no other organization doing anything as far as active litigation on the justifiable need issue in NJ, and I don't understand the reason for crapping on the one that is because it's not your "ideal" case.

Newtonian - maybe you don't agree with where they've decided to pitch their battle, or their tactics, but they're still the enemy of your enemy even if you don't want to call the SAF your friends. Maybe you could try to not spit on them... Myself, I just joined SAF, specifically because they announced they're backing the Almeida case. When's the last time the NRA put themselves directly behind an individual case in NJ? No reason that the SAF can't mix it up in this case while AT THE SAME TIME NJ gun owners work the election levers to bring heat on our oppressors.

I did not have any issue completing the signing process for the petition. (And I know you begged not to go off topic, but please also consider sending a fax via http://savem855.com/ and even printing out and mailing letters as well)

H. E., do you know of anyone that actually had gunpowder/primer killed by oil? Read the following - I wouldn't claim that one guy farting around with a couple boxes of ammo is a rigorous test, but it does put doubt in my mind that gunpowder/primers can be contaminated by having WD40 or other kinds of oil sitting on the rounds: http://www.theboxotruth.com/the-box-o-truth-39-oil-vs-primers/