Bob B

Try this one: Oral Arguments

The letter from NJSP confirming that Municipal PD's may not limit the number of permits is posted here: http://njgunforums.c...not-be-limited/ ...and Maks is correct. You can get 1,000 permits if you like ($2 each). Maybe you want to buy a substantial collection. That is perfectly legal. You can get OGAM exemptions as a collector.

Is this to carry, HD, recreation, other?

Precisely.

+1 Nothing in the Annotated Statutes or the Administrative Code that says that.

Pizza Bob is my hero.

Agreed.

^^^ Not to worry, no snarkyness detected. I think the bar would be "defined" in the subsequent cases where the judges will come up with some convoluted way of interpreting the Muller decision (the appeal, not the SAF case). For example, State v. Pelleteri, "knowingly in possession of an assault firearm" does not mean that you have to know it is an assault firearm, it only means that you must know that you possess it, regardless of what it is. Example #2, Adler v. Livak, The issuing authority must approve the application within 30 days unless good cause exists for a denial, but, "good cause" to deny a permit exists if the investigation has not been completed yet, and, just because good cause exists, the issuing authority does not have to deny the permit as soon as the 30 day limit is up. The 30 day limit states "unless good cause exists" which it does, but there is no language compelling the issuing authority to deny the permit at that point. Therefore, the issuing authority may wait until the investigation is complete, at which point, if there are no disqualifying factors present, good cause "evaporates" and the permit is to be issued. These, of course, are absolute perversions of the law. I am convinced that they would find a way to use Muller as an unachievable standard. I'm straying from my original point, however, which was only that if Muller does not meet the "justifiable need" standard, then that is evidence that subjective standards as they apply to regulating a due process right, don't work and that is like a compass needle pointing toward strict scrutiny.

I'm not convinced of that, because, with the contingent of liberal justices in NJ who are able to justify anything, they will deny all subsequent permits on the grounds that they do not clear the bar set by Muller. Easy, breezy, lemon squeezy. Whether it is belief or hope, that is certainly the course they have chosen. And let's remember that "they" means Governor Chris Christie and AG Paula Dow. Since there is no statute which excludes self-defense from justifiable need, a simple Executive Order and a change to the Administrative Code could "rewrite" the law. An example of this tactic is Executive Order 47. Governor Christie rewrote the exemptions to OPRA (Open Public Records Act) with an executive order, to be followed by a change to the Administrative Code. No bills, no legislature, just - stroke of the pen, law of the land. Christie deserves no slack when it comes to not having de facto shall issue in NJ. His continuing deflection of the question to the legislature is nothing more than an "escape hatch." He could change it tomorrow if he had the inclination. If the NY, MD and NJ cases all fail, we lose. SCOTUS doesn't like to hear cases where the District Courts are ruling consistently. If the NY, MD and NJ cases all win, we win. Again, SCOTUS won't grant certiorari. If it is split, we go to SCOTUS. SCOTUS generally will hear a case where different District Courts have ruled differently in order to establish a standard, as long as there is a clearly defined, very narrow question to be answered, like, "what level of scrutiny should be applied to laws and regulations limiting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

^^^ Well said Ken. I would like Mr. Muller to get his permit, but, in my opinion, it helps our case that Mr. Muller has been and continues to be denied. It proves the point that government officials cannot be tasked with determining who gets to exercise a due process right based on subjective criteria (justifiable need and public safety, health and welfare). That system is subject to complete failure, as we see here. It is also evidence that strict scrutiny should be used rather than intermediate scrutiny because Mr. Muller's denial can more easily be upheld using the lower standard. I am a bit baffled why he has not been given his permit. If they would, his complaint would become moot and he might lose his standing - SAF would possibly lose their most compelling plaintiff. From a strategic standpoint, the State is now a victim of its own ridiculous case law. Ironic.

Well, what you are saying is that we should not exercise our rights, because if we do, they might be taken away. Well if we don't they will surely be taken away. NJ is proof of that.

Exactly right. I don't think he was looking for trouble. I think he was prepared for it. The root cause of the trouble was that the LEO's didn't know the law - none of them. I just hope that this time they are getting the training that they need so that they don't make the same mistake again.

Thank you. It seems that there is no end to the inventory of insane gun laws. Although I wouldn't want to be the test case, it would be interesting to see the outcome of a case challenging this law on First Amendment grounds if the fake gun was worn as a protest.

You're welcome Harry. www.handgunlaw.us is another good site.

Statute? I'd like to take a look at that.

Out of all of those, you can only get CT. MD is impossible (need "good and substantial reasons," "documented threats," etc.).. SC requires real property ownership in the state. RI you must have a business or residence. NY, you must be a resident or be "principally employed" in the state and a NY permit is not good in NYC. You must have a NYC permit to carry in the five boroughs (Manhattan, Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island). MA has had some recent changes so there are still questions about whether or not there is a way through the application process for a Non-res. I have heard that it's not impossible to get a restricted permit. Not sure about an unrestricted one.

CT is $70 for 5 years. NH is $100 for 4 years ME is $60 for 4 years

You should write a letter to the Governor and tell him (politely) exactly that.

Different states have different reciprocity agreements, so it is possible to be able to carry in more states than those that the FL permit offers. For example, UT gets you MN, which FL does not. If you have different permits that expire at different times, you're less likely to find yourself in a pickle if you forget to renew one. Reciprocity agreements change sometimes. It's possible to lose a state on one permit but keep it on another. The more permits you have, the more likely you are to pick up a new state as the result of a new reciprocity agreement. These are the ones you can get through the mail: FL, UT, AZ, VA, CT, NH, ME

The thing that I find interesting is that it is clearly a talking point, but a talking point from whom?

I did VA and AZ at the last NJ2AS meeting. Mailed them today (3/22).

Ah, good. I'll keep good records. They may come in handy later. Thanks for the heads up.

But where's the letter?

Called today, but just got voicemail. Will try again tomorrow.