Bob B

No problem. By doing so, you actually helped me catch a spelling error. lol

That whole thread is a search for the boogeyman. Although it wouldn't surprise me if a prosecutor in NJ attempted such a thing, it would clearly be a folly. I find it annoying when, in the absence of case law, someone tries to announce their own "ruling," and the wrong ruling at that. I prefer to stick with the facts, not conjecture and speculation. In addition, it is harmful to perpetuate this myth. We would all be better off if every thread mentioning it were deleted.

PK90, Have you given up on that one?

Having the form would be very helpful. If you could post it or email it to me, I would appreciate it. If the form is not mandatory, it's probably not one that we will go after during this next phase, but it's important that we have the form so we know as much as possible about the various townships and, therefore, we can plan phase III and beyond. Thanks.

NJ2AS is doing an analysis of FID and PPP application requirements and identifying people that are willing to be plaintiffs specifically in Cape May and Atlantic Counties. If anyone has any forms (other than those listed below) from any municipal PDs in those two counties, please post them in this thread, or email them to me. If you can answer yes to these three questions, please PM me or contact me at [email protected]. Sorry for not going into more detail on line. I’m sure you understand why. I live in Cape May County or Atlantic County My local PD requires something other than SP 66, STS 033 and SBI 212A in order to get an FID or PPP. I am willing to be a plaintiff or I might be willing to be a plaintiff once I understand the details If you do not want to be a plaintiff, but you are aware of a particular town’s additional requirements, it would still be a big help if you could post the forms anyway, or send them to me. There are absolutely no obligations at this point. This is still in the research phase. Thanks in advance for your help.

Correct, however, keep in mind that you may still be charged with possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose (2C:39-4), even if you have an FID. And, of course, there is no list telling us what the lawful vs. unlawful purposes are.

We need a "crabs in a bucket" smiley. Our objective is not to pick apart the guide. We are hoping that the guide is well prepared and in line with the statutes and Administrative Code. OEC is about bringing municipal police departments in line with the statutes. Among other things, having the guide will allow us to identify and prove where the many violations that we see on a daily basis at the municipal level are originating. Our reply will be done in a week or two, at which point, you will be able to see our approach. Without going into too much detail, the bottom line is that there are multiple avenues around this issue. We all know that nothing is as it seems with the law in NJ and OPRA is no different. Even though OPRA allows for the Governor to add exemptions by Executive Order, this is not a license to exempt anything for any reason whatsoever (sound familiar?). Case law supports the position that an EO can only exempt government records for legitimate reasons and the State has the burden of proving that such conditions exist. Second, our request for the guide was made under OPRA AND under "common law right of access." Common law right of access has nothing to do with OPRA. In OPRA, a government record must be released unless there is an exemption. In common law right of access, there is a balancing test. The need of the government to keep the records secret is weighed against the need of the public to see the records. A record that is exempt under OPRA may be released under common law right of access. Third, we have no illusions that we are going to win the first round in Trenton. We are prepared to appeal and will do so if we are not satisfied with the results. Lastly, if we do not get access to the guide, this will not stop OEC. We can gain access to the guide through discovery in our next lawsuit. It is actually in the State's best interest to give us the guide. Having the guide will allow us to determine the source of the illegal additional requirements that we see and may lead to a discussion with the various police chiefs whose departments are not in compliance. Some may agree to change their procedures once we show them that what they are doing is not in the guide. By not giving us the guide, we are forced to file suit -- we are forced to take a more aggressive approach. We are prepared either way. SkinsFan, thanks for the support.

The whole dichotomy of the "fighters" and the "civilians" was really pi$$ing me off. Once again, the paradigm that civilians don't have the ability to defend themselves. Must have been written by someone from Jersey. Other than that, I found it interesting enough to watch the next episode. The question was raised briefly as to why the robots were bipedal and the aliens had six legs. There must be other aliens that are bipedal. The "skidders" must be drones or something for a far more insidious group of two legged aliens.

REPLY BRIEF ADDED TO OP I just added three other documents to my original post. Two of them are part I and part II of the NJSP's reply brief. Our court date is July 12th at 9:30 AM in Trenton.

What exactly is the town asking of USANA?

You have fallen for a ruse, a switch. Paul Helmke, and others, have taken "if the right is not infringed, then the law is reasonable" (a result, not a test) and have substituted "if the law is reasonable, then the right is not infringed" (a standard which does not exist). I remember the discussion that you speak of. The defendant asserted the former and then I think it was Alito that said, "I wouldn't say it that way. If the right is not infringed, then the law is reasonable." He was refuting the concept. But, the point is that, even though they discussed it in oral arguments, the concept never made it into the decision. "Reasonable" implies a balancing test, which was completely rejected. Balancing tests are not used on any fundamental right and "reasonable" is not a legal standard and cannot be legitimately applied to a fundamental right. Heller does not say that reasonable regulations are acceptable, anywhere. McDonald does the opposite by making the point that reasonable regulations may, and often do, violate fundamental rights and gives DC's handgun ban as an example of what a particular locality may consider reasonable. The point of establishing a right as fundamental is precisely so that legislators cannot infringe upon them under the guise of being reasonable. It is to take away the balancing test altogether. As you engage someone who believes in reasonable gun regulations, it is important to utterly and completely destroy the notion altogether that the term "reasonable" as a legal standard can be applied in any way, shape or form to a fundamental right. There is no battle to determine what is reasonable or not reasonable as reasonable is not and will never be the standard. The question will never be, "is this law reasonable?" The question will be, "does this law infringe upon the right based upon a particular standard of scrutiny?" The notion that either Heller or McDonald allow reasonable gun legislation is preposterous. They both reject the concept altogether, and that is what we must keep stating and restating if we are going to counter the misinformation that is put out there by those who want "reasonableness" to be the standard.

The term "reasonable legislation" (or "reasonable regulations," etc.) does not appear in Heller. "Reasonable... regulations" does appear in McDonald, but not in the holding. It only appears in dicta as a reference to an amicus brief while shooting down (no pun intended) the defendant's assertion that the Second Amendment should not be incorporated, or should be only partially incorporated so that states could still have "reasonable regulations." This method was thoroughly and completely rejected. The closest that Heller and McDonald come to saying anything about "reasonable legislation" is as follows (from McDonald): What's more important is the following quote from Heller: The "reasonable legislation" or "reasonable regulation" assertion appears nowhere in Heller, yet we hear it all the time. The latter quote... not so much, yet it says so much more about the decision. It would serve us all well if we would stop using the term "reasonable" since it is not a term used in either decision to describe the allowable legislation and it is not a legal standard. And we should immediately and vigorously point out to anyone who claims such a thing that it is patently false and point out the actual quotes, which are irrefutable. Whenever someone tells me that Heller says we can have reasonable legislation, I ask them what page of the decision that's on. That usually ends the debate, because it doesn't exist.

Tom, feel free to cross post to the other forums that you frequent, or download the files and post them there. Thanks for donating. We are making steady, meaningful progress and we are working diligently on phase II of OEC.

Proof that the approval authority cannot be law enforcement and that approval cannot be based on subjective criteria.

^It does make you wonder.

For those interested, I have attached a copy of our complaint, brief, order to show cause and two requests for extension from the AG. The AG has asked for two extensions citing their case load of 120 active cases. We have informed them that we will not be accepting any further requests for extension. Our court date will now be moved to early July. It is possible to get a decision at the hearing although the Judge may choose to issue his decision at a later date. For those of you who are not aware, we are suing for access to the NJSP Firearms Application Guidebook. This is the first step in Operation Establish Compliance (OEC) (See link in my signature for more info). Donations are needed and appreciated and may be done by clicking on the link on the NJ2AS homepage (www.NJ2AS.com). Thanks to all, the support has been tremendous. Edit: Added three more attachments. Court date is now July 12th. NJ2AS Complaint.pdf NJ2AS Brief.pdf 4-29-11 signed order to show cause.pdf 5-20-11 fax from Postelnik.pdf 6-8-11 fax from Postelnik.pdf 6-10-11 Postelnik letter.pdf NJSP\'s 6-15-11 brief, Part I.pdf NJSP\'s 6-15-11 brief, Part II.pdf NJ2AS reply brief (2).pdf 9-1-11 letter from Rizzo.pdf 9-30-11 NJSP filing-1.pdf 10-3-11 Gutman Certification.pdf 10-3-11 motion, briefs.pdf 11-29-11 Rizzo\'s cover letter.pdf 11-29-11 Certification.pdf 11-30-11 Response to Third Certification.pdf 12-2-11 Order.pdf NJ2AS v. NJSP appeal brief.pdf Appeal Notice of Docketing, Scheduling Order.pdf 013112 ACLU ltr to Clerk.pdf 021412 motion, brief to consolidate.pdf 030512 Rizzo motion for extension of time re consolidation.pdf 032012 S.P. opposition regarding consolidation.pdf 032112 reply documents.pdf 042012 orders-2 consolidation granted.pdf 051512 AG\'s motion to file single brief.pdf 051512 AG\'s letter.pdf 061412 letter of Conforti.pdf 070312 ACLU Brief Cover.pdf 070312 ACLU Brief I-1.pdf 070312 ACLU Brief II-2.pdf 2012 071212 ACLU\'s 7-12-2012, 7-18-12 letters-1.pdf 2012 072712 letter to Clerk.pdf 2012 073012 State Police request for extension of time.pdf 2012 083012 State Police motion for extension of time(1).pdf 2012 090612 Order(1).pdf 2012 092712 ACLU motion, brief(1).pdf 2012 092712 ACLU supplemental appendix.pdf 2012 093012 NJSP filing-1-1.pdf 2012 093012 NJSP Reference Form-1.pdf 2012 100112 State Police\'s motion to supplement(1).pdf 2012 100212 letter to clerk(1).pdf 2013 011713 NJ2AS reply brief 2.pdf 2013 020513 NJ SECOND AMEND MOTION STAY CONFORTI CERT 02 05 2013.pdf 2013 020513 SECOND AMENDMENT MOTION STAY CERT SERV 02 05 2013.pdf 2013 020513 SECOND AMENDMENT MOTION STAY COV LTR 02 05 2013.pdf

Terrific video. The sound quality is really good. You can hear every word. At first, I wasn't going to watch it, because I was there, but then I decided to check it out. I picked up a lot by watching the videos that I didn't when I was sitting there. I think this should be mandatory viewing for legislators, people who are new to shooting sports in NJ, new gun owners and everyone else who cares about the subject. Great job!

FL has an advantage over UT because you don't have to renew for 7 years. UT is 5. Plus, UT requires a special class. FL's requirements for proof of competence with a firearm are more convenient. Chances are you already have one of the things that qualify. Hunter's Ed card, dd214, any NRA class, etc. FL gets you NM, which UT does not and UT gets you MN which FL does not. If you get both, you'll get the extra state. Plus, you have the benefit of overlapping expiration dates. If you forget to renew one, you still have the other. The others you can get that have good reciprocity are VA and AZ, but you won't get any additional states with those. Also, CT, NH and ME are easy to get and don't recognize any other state's permit, or only recognize resident permits, so you can add three states by getting those. As Frank previously stated, you can get the FL permit application and do your prints, photos and notary at any NJ2AS monthly meeting. You can also bring your application from any other state with you and do your prints, photos and notary. I believe in getting every state that you can because of a federal law called the Gun Free School Zones Act (you cannot knowingly possess a firearm within 1000' of school property if you are carrying via reciprocity -- clearly a violation of equal protection, but the new version of the law has not been challenged yet. The old one was found unconstitutional by SCOTUS, but congress wiggled around it by changing the law to only apply to firearms that moved in interstate commerce). You have a bit more piece of mind if you have a particular state's permit if you plan to carry there.

^Interesting. I would think that would mean that an NRA classification card would work also -- if that proves to be true.

Reverberating carbonizer with mutate capacity

As you can see, Frank has been working too hard. I think he meant that you can go through the FL (or other) CCW process and become a member for the same $50. Frank, please take a break, you deserve it.

^^^ Exactly. It's proof that a right can ever be based on subjective criteria. Also, this is a civil rights case based on Title 42, Section 1983. His right to bear arms for self-defense was delayed, so he was still harmed because of the "justifiable need" requirement and therefore still has standing.

Welcome back. Your story is very common and seems to be happening more and more as NJ residents wake up to the fact that we have a different set of rights than the rest of the country. If you are serious about assisting, there are three organizations that are actively "in the fight" in NJ. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is a national organization that initiates high level lawsuits seeking to invalidate key components of bad gun law (think Heller v. DC, McDonald v. Chicago and Muller v. Maenza, among others). The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) is the state affiliate of the NRA (that does not mean that they are the NRA but they have a close relationship). They are a state level organization that is more geared towards recreation and competition related activities, but they have also initiated some important lawsuits. They are currently involved in three, Revell v. Port Authority, xxxxxx v. xxxxxx (a challenge to One Gun a Month -- OGAM. I'll find the name and fill it in later), and Muller v. Maenza, which you already know about. There's really no way to help SAF or ANJRPC that I know of other than membership and donations. The third organization is the New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS), whose board and staff frequent this forum (including me). NJ2AS is a newer (about 1yr old) organization that was born right here at NJGF and is very active at the grass roots level. We have monthly meetings with high quality guest speakers, meet with legislators, and have recently entered the litigation arena as well (see Operation Establish Compliance link in my signature). We currently are suing the New Jersey State Police for access to their Firearms Application Guidebook so we can see what exactly they are telling the municipality police departments (many of which routinely violate the NJ permitting statutes and administrative code). You can assist NJ2AS by joining, donating, attending the meetings (attendance of the meetings is important because we frequently have State Senators and Assemblymen and a good showing helps our cause), volunteering and possibly being a plaintiff in future lawsuits. We can use all the help we can get.

no sense of humor?

Hmmm Do you thing there's a semi-auto version of that?