Bob B

My apologies. It was meant to show that I was taking your criticisms with a sense of humor. Perhaps I'm dating myself by using the two old guys from the Muppet Show - they are the two guys that always sat in the balcony and made fun of everyone, including themselves. At any rate, I took it down. No hard feelings I hope.

Didn't mean to offend. I was making light of the response by showing that we can have a sense of humor about it.

Just so you know, it has very little to do with secrecy and has much more to do with keeping our word. When we are working with others, be it legislators or attorneys, or other organizations, there are conditions that we have to agree to. When working with legislators, it is unwise to advertise what we are doing, for obvious reasons. It is better to get to the point where there is a commitment, and only then make a public announcement. When working with other organizations, we learned quickly that one of the things that drives organizations apart and keeps them from working together is the fear that the other organization will try to take the credit. It's a childish fear, but it is a real one. By being discrete until all involved agree that the time is right to announce what we are doing, or have done, we maintain those very important relationships and we preserve our credibility. Once that credibility is lost, it's gone forever, so we guard it very carefully. Having said that, your point is valid. We can at least do a better job of clarifying our objectives. In the mean time, let me try to summarize. Our first project was Operation Defend Life and was CCW related. It was the thing that brought us together in the beginning. Our objective was to combine the efforts of those on this forum and others that were considering filing a post McDonald challenge to NJ's carry laws, pick the best candidates to be plaintiffs and either file the suit ourselves, or better yet, considering that we were a young organization with no resources, hand them off to a larger organization. Without getting into the details (because we gave our word that we wouldn't) we accomplished our objective. There are several on this forum that have firsthand knowledge of what really happened. We don't want them to say anything either, but they can at least attest to the fact that we were successful. Next, we began to collect data on the problems that the gun community as a whole wanted fixed. At the top of the list was a combination of the permitting delays and the additional requirements. As a result, we initiated Operation Establish Compliance, which has nothing to do with CCW and everything to do with the most common complaints of all gun owners in NJ. We have published quite a bit about that effort. One of the other issues that was at the top of the list was the many similar problems that are a result of NJ law making no distinction between criminals and honest citizens when it comes to things like magazine capacity, hollow-points, possession, etc. This is one of those areas where we can't say what we are doing on a public forum, but we can and do go into more detail at our meetings. Another common complaint is that the FID/PPP process should be changed. This could take may forms, but there are some common denominators, one being that the NICS check has made the PPP obsolete. We have some ideas here, one of which Frank discussed in episode 10 on Gun For Hire Radio. There is more, but you get the point and I hope that this at least gives you, and hopefully others, a comfort level that we are working on the most important issues, we are taking a realistic approach to each and we are making progress. Believe me when I say that keeping some of this stuff confidential is at least as frustrating for us as it is for anyone else. We really do our best to keep everyone informed as much as possible without jeopardizing the progress we have made. But, there is one surefire way to find out everything that we are working on... become involved. Perhaps you can chair a committee, or something similar. We could definitely use the help, even if it was for a limited time period -- 6 months or whatever. We would be happy to talk to you about it. Lastly, thanks for your comments. One thing that we have to continue to do at NJ2AS is to pay attention, not to take anything personally and continue to identify areas where we can improve.

Manalapan has a blanket waiver that IS NOT mandatory. They claim that not signing it will make your permits take longer, but that is, of course, not true.

Just signed up. Should be fun.

Thanks for noticing! $10,022 67% of goal. Thanks for all of the support. We are getting very close now.

Just to play devil's advocate, it is those who passed OGAM who put Mr. Stout in a position where he is so afraid, that he feels that he must risk losing customers rather than risk violating the law. I'm not excusing his actions, but let's remember to keep our focus on the root cause. We're all on the same team. I would rather not see a wedge driven between gun purchasers and retailers over this, or any other issue. That's exactly what they want -- to keep us fighting amongst ourselves.

A copy of your DD 214 is adequate. You don't have to bring it. You just have to put it in the envelope before mailing it. From the application instructions (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/FORMS/FormsRequest790.html): You will need ID for the notary and fingerprinting portion. Will this be your first NJ2AS meeting? If so, welcome. I hope you enjoy the presentation.

I'm in!

What's the difference between Open and Limited Class?

Now that's funny! Looks like a good candidate for the next gun buy back.

This brings up an interesting question. In the thread covering the open carry incident in Oceanside, CA, KpdPipes stated, in his professional opinion as a LEO, that if someone is open carrying in an area where open carrying, unloaded, is legal, then reasonable suspicion exists that the gun may be loaded and, therefore, the LEO may stop and seize the firearm, check if it is unloaded and search the person for other weapons. So here is the question, if what KpdPipes says is true, then would it not follow that if you inform a LEO that you have firearms in the trunk, which also must be unloaded, wouldn't reasonable suspicion then appear that those firearms may be loaded allowing for a subsequent search to check that the firearms are, in fact, unloaded?

Before everyone gets too excited, SCOTUS has not decided to hear the case yet. They are supposed to decide in September whether to hear it or not in 2012. http://cloudigylaw.c...on-w-appx-1.pdf http://www.examiner.com/la-in-los-angeles/obama-faces-a-showdown-with-the-second-amendment

Okay, fair enough. In your professional opinion, were there any other circumstances apparent in the OP's video that rise to the level of reasonable suspicion?

I'm not sure I understand. Does that mean that your answer is that there is automatically reasonable suspicion because the officer doesn't know if the gun is loaded or unloaded?

I think you misunderstand. I'm not complaining or criticizing. It's a real question and a real dilemma. I'll respect your opinion either way but most of all I'm interested in your reasoning. Old Glock Guy makes a good point that a person could be stopped over and over again, at which point it becomes a real problem, if it wasn't already. You and Jon make a good point that if the person carrying is up to no good and if the police are not dispatched, something bad might happen. My reply is that it is also possible that the police could be dispatched to several calls reporting a MWAG where the individuals are carrying legally and that might cause the police to miss a real emergency, at which point bad things could happen. ...but this all goes back to my original question. Is openly carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion. I'm sincerely interested in your opinion.

I think a better question is, should the police be dispatched in response to a call of MWAG, where carrying in the manner described is legal and the caller does not describe any behavior that would be considered illegal or threatening.

It's not my vague definition. There's clearly room for debate about whether or not he was free to go. I'll give you that. He never actually asked if he was being detained or if he was free to go, but, it's kind of hard to go when the officer has taken your gun. But, there's no debate that he was stopped, searched and had his gun seized, which, without reasonable suspicion is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. So, my question remains. Is carrying a handgun in an apparently legal manner, in and of itself, reasonable suspicion? Is that adequate in your opinion?

I agree with you that there is a dilemma here. That is one of the points of my question. I wonder if it is the policy of the Oceanside PD to dispatch the police to any report of MWAG. The answer is probably yes, and that is likely a very common policy. Instead, should the 911 operator qualify the event with the caller? Is the MWAG threatening the person or property of another? Do you have any reason to believe that the MWAG is about to commit a crime? Does the MWAG appear intoxicated or under the influence? If the answers are no, then the police are not dispatched and the caller is told that the MWAG is carrying legally, but call back immediately if he threatens anyone. There may be an even better solution, I'm just thinking out loud, but consider what would happen if 10 people were observed carrying that day in Oceanside, or 100. Dispatching the police for every MWAG call is not going to work. So, what would work and still be acceptable? My understanding is that a A Terry Stop, or a Stop and Identify are both illegal, or at least improper, if there is no reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. Terry Stop: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html A few examples of states that have stop and identify laws (not sure about NJ). http://law.justia.com/codes/alabama/2006/14214/15-5-30.html http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/02412.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS http://delcode.delaware.gov/title11/c019/sc01/index.shtml#P27_576 http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072500050HArt.+107&ActID=1966&ChapAct=725%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=54&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+PROCEDURE&SectionID=30017&SeqStart=8300000&SeqEnd=10000000&ActName=Code+of+Criminal+Procedure+of+1963. (scroll down to Sec. 107-14) So, I am posing the question, is carrying a gun (in a manner which appears to be legal), in and of itself, Reasonable Suspicion or Reasonable Articulable Suspicion? If we answer is no, then we believe what the officer did was unacceptable. Stop, detain, disarm, pat down outer garments, question, identify, determine that no crime has been committed and release. That's a Terry Stop and by definition, the person is being detained. If we answer yes, then we have just acquiesced to being stopped by a police officer, disarmed, patted down, etc., even if only for two minutes, when there is no evidence whatsoever that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. We are being treated differently than the rest of society because we are exercising our right to carry for self-defense. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my point of view. Just pointing out that maybe we shouldn't be so happy about this video either. I was as impressed with the officer's professionalism and skills as everyone, but my hope is that we all consider the implications that may not be so immediately obvious. I am not ready to hold this up as the gold standard yet. I still see problems and there will be plenty of opportunities in the future to further develop our opinions on the subject.

I agree. I'm encouraged that the officer was polite and professional and genuinely seemed to support the right to carry, but it still looks like an illegal stop to me -- no RAS. It's much better than what we have been seeing, i.e. the Canton, Ohio stop and the Philly stop, but we have to be careful not to accept this as the standard.

Is carrying a gun, by itself, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion?

Oceanside, CA? Interesting.

I would like to hear the explanation. If Scott is getting paid $150k to drop his practice and work full time for ANJRPC as ANJRPC's attorney to take the fight to a new level, that could be great news. $150k for an attorney for an entire year is a bargain, and much of it could be recovered when awarded attorneys fees. Scott might be sacrificing his business for this. Let's not jump to conclusions until we hear both sides of the story.

As shocking as this video is, it is a necessary step toward knowledge and acceptance of CCW by police and society in general. For some, it takes seeing an extreme overreaction like this one in order to understand the full picture. Some police officers may not like civilians with guns, but they must learn to properly and professionally contend with them. The viral nature of this event will communicate that important lesson faster and wider than any classroom instructor ever could, and, therefore, ends up being very helpful. ...still a bad day for Mr. Bartlett though. While I was typing this, the video went from 197k to 214k views. I'd like to see it on The Factor.

Single action?