Bob B

No news is bad news.

We are aware of that. We are just anticipating that the time of the hearing may change and if so, we don't want to keep changing the bus times back and forth. We will make a final announcement on bus departure times about 24 hours out, or sooner if we are confident that the time will not change.

The reason for this bill is to make sure that the other bill, which prohibits the release of permit information to the public, does not result in prohibiting the release of just the numbers of permits and permit denials. Unless I am missing something that has been cleverly hidden in there, it seems innocuous to me.

Was he there as a private detective or in his capacity as a police officer? If the latter, what was he doing in NJ? If the former, who was he working for?

The only thing I can tell you is that the other side is going to be there and they will be desperately trying to make these bills worse, while we try to do the opposite. We do not want to lose any ground at these hearings and we want to gain ground if possible. The only way to do that is to show up with bigger numbers and a clearer message. Last time, there were many people that didn't get to speak, but they did not go unnoticed. That event resonated throughout that place. Chris Christie called it a "kangaroo court" and even Loretta Weinberg recently referred to us as "highly motivated" and "highly organized." I'm not going to say that they are afraid of us, or that they are going to do everything that we want, but, I will say this. They see us as a group that is gaining momentum, gaining popularity and gaining political power. We need to prove them right, or they will be emboldened. If we can succeed in neutralizing the most egregious provisions in these bills, this will be felt by our opposition as a crushing defeat in the premier anti-gun stronghold of New Jersey. We need to hit them hard at this hearing. This hearing matters.

A revised agenda for the 30th was just posted. It looks like four bills have been removed. I am told that a second agenda will be posted today for Thursday, 5/2. We'll see.

They pulled the hearing off of the schedule to make changes. They are supposed to re-post today. We'll see.

There are more bills that have not been released yet, including Sweeney's "signature" bill. Everyone needs to be aware that the other side is campaigning very hard to get more oppressive provisions added to this legislation. They will be at the hearing asking why some things that the Assembly passed are missing. For example, they will be demanding a reduction in mag capacity. It is imperative that we be there in large numbers to counter their efforts, even if most of these bills seem comparatively innocuous. April 30th, and most likely one other day, May 1st or May 2nd, are going to be a battle. It's all hands on deck - not just to oppose these bills, but to keep them from being amended by the other side.

The hearing is not on the schedule yet, but we were told by Steve Sweeney that it would begin on 4/30 and may last two or three days. Of course, that could change, but we wanted to get the word out as early as possible. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to have a good showing during this hearing.

There is a difference between having a training requirement for possession outside the home, like when concealed carrying or when hunting, and having a training requirement to merely purchase a firearm or for mere possession in the home. NJ already has a training requirement to get a NJ Permit to Carry and to get a Huntiing License. While training is always a good idea, I don't see how anyone could conclude that it is constitutional for a governement to say that you may not protect your own life in your own home with a gun unless you satisfy a training requirement first, or that you must train with something that you don't own yet in order to own it. Don't you need it first to train with it?

Lautenberg made it to the vote.

No change to the FID unless it is accompanied by an iron clad 30 day (or less) rule and an appeals process for denials that is open to everyone, not just those who can afford an attorney. That means a provision that awards attorneys fees and court costs if the denial is overturned. If they can't agree to that, then we will be faced with the same delays - not acceptable. If they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on gun buy-backs, surely they can spend the same on modernizing the permit process.

If you are worried about possessing HP's during a self-defense incident in your home, shoot all of them into the bad guy, that way, he will be the one possessing them when the police arrive. If you are worried about possessing HP's while moving between residences, drive to the range first, then to the second residence, since to and from the range is an exemption.

Took the tour today. The place is awesome!

Thank you. That's an honest answer. Do you think it would be okay to say something like "My name is xxxxxx. I am speaking for myself only as a concerned citizen. I have an opinion about this bill because I am a police officer with xx years of experience. I think this bill is good/bad because, based on my experience..." In other words, your testimony is important precisely because of your background. To exclude that you have that background may lower the perceived importance of your opinion. Do you think that would be okay, again, as long you are not in uniform and you do not claim to be representing your department or the institution in general - that you declare up front that you are speaking only for yourself?

Do you feel free to testify at a public hearing, like a Senate Law and Public Safety Committee hearing (off duty, not in uniform), or do you feel that there would be some kind of consequence?

Correct me if I am wrong, but, based on the feedback so far, there does not seem to be any kind of official policy prohibiting LEO's from participating in public hearings, town halls, committee hearings, etc. as long as they are not in uniform, it is done on their own time and they do not claim to represent the views of their department, only themselves. For the LEO's that responded, is the unofficial policy enough to dissuade you from participating, or do you feel like you can do so relatively freely?

Have you ever been told not to participate in such events as rallies, public meetings, committee hearings or contacting your legislators? Do you feel like you would suffer some sort of retaliation if you did, even if you were not in uniform and it was on your own time?

I am refraining from commenting on whether or not it is right or wrong until some more LEO's respond. I would like to know if it is really happening, and to what extent.

Chief Comey comes to mind.

Interesting. What does it mean that they would not look kindly? Would you get a talking to, less hours, bad assignments? Could you get fired?

I recently spoke with several LEO's, all of which had very strong feelings against the recent gun bills at both the state and federal level. They all had well formed opinions based on years of law enforcement experience as to why they opposed the bills. After asking them if they attended the rally or spoke at the Assembly Law and Public Safety Committee hearing or contacted their legislators to express their opinions, they told me that they were prohibited by their departments from participating in such things even if they were off duty and not in uniform. Is this true?

If showing her the letter doesn't work, give Lt. Genova a call. He is the new Unit Head of the NJSP Firearms Investigation Unit.

The most recent version states:

I see. So you think that maybe they were trying to ban the .50 BMG and the equivalent without banning other .50 cal firearms, but they didn't take out the language that bans the other .50 cal center fire firearms, just the muzzle loaders, shotguns and rifled barrel shotguns. You might be right. Of course, the objective is to stop the bill altogether. I was just trying to understand what they were trying to do. It seems to me that the other arms mentioned above that could exceed 12,000 ft lbs are already banned because they are over .60 cal. Am I correct?