Bob B

Cliff's notes version: This case is an important cornerstone in requiring government to have a transparent gun permitting scheme. Transparency allows us to hold violators accountable via litigation. Secrecy begets impunity.

You can email the forms to me at [email protected]. We have successfully eliminated the additional forms from 8 towns and we are currently working on several others. We'll add your town to the list.

I have added Bernards Township to OEC (thank you, FishNJ for posting the document). If anyone else's town does the same thing, please email me something from them indicating the additional requirement and I will add those towns also. My email is in my signature block below. OEC has now eliminated additional requirements from six towns. Long Branch fell on Monday. Please email me any forms or instructions indicating additional requirements so I can add them to the list. Thanks.

For those who have not heard, we received a letter from the Long Branch Township Attorney on Monday concurring with our reading of the "no additional requirements" clause of 2C:58-3(f). They have agreed to become compliant within two weeks.

You are welcome. Thank you for your support.

I just added the ACLU's brief to the OP. No court date is set yet. It is likely to be several more months.

My "thank you" was sincere. I was thanking you for answering my question, not claiming victory. But, I see now that you have clarified your answer. Here's your case: US v. Deberry http://caselaw.findl...it/1027378.html ...and the pertinent part: I'm not trying to convince you, just pointing out the other side. I'm happy as long as everyone is at least thinking about whether or not detaining the guy was legal. It takes a long time for this stuff to sink in. It's not necessarily intuitive.

Not exactly. An officer can ask questions of anyone at any time. However, the individual is under no obligation to participate, hence the question "Am I being detained or am I free to go?" The officer must have RAS to do a Terry Stop, i.e. detain and search via pat down of outer garments. The officer must have PC to search further or arrest (or have the person's consent). The ME video and the CA video are very different because the CA individual is considered to have voluntarily participated because he didn't ask if he could go. The ME individual clearly asserted his right to not be detained, but was detained anyway. That is why, in the ME example, the existence of RAS is so important.

Thank you.

I'll just stick with this one, because it is the important one. The reason I ask the question is because the answer determines whether or not the officer's Terry Stop was legal. The reason it is called a "Terry Stop" is from Terry v. Ohio, where the court ruled that an officer must have RAS to detain and search an individual for weapons, limited to patting down his outer garments. The justification of which was for the officer's safety. Since the officer admitted that the only reason he stopped him was because he was carrying a gun, the question is completely valid and not a "straw-man argument" at all. It goes to the very heart of the matter. Whether the guy was wise to open carry, or was acting like a jerk are other valid questions, but have nothing to do with whether or not what the officer did was legal. So, my question remains: So, what does everyone think? Was there RAS, yes or no?

1. Is open carrying a firearm, where open carrying is perfectly legal, reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed? 2. Open carrying, as a tactical decision, in a densely populated crime ridden urban area, might not be the best choice. While hiking, or working on your farm, or walking down the street in Maine, it's probably a perfectly fine choice. 3. Perhaps it is a strategic decision, but the police open carry all the time and it doesn't seem to be a problem. In fact, it seems to be quite a deterrent. I don't see why, as a matter of strategy for deterring crime in an urban area, open carry wouldn't be perfectly valid and yield positive results, i.e. lower crime. 4. Perhaps if dispatchers would not dispatch police officers to investigate legal behavior, having an officer investigate someone open carrying instead of helping a heart attack victim wouldn't happen. 5. If I were an LEO and I knew that there were people open carrying in a certain area, I would go somewhere else, where I might be needed - a gun free zone perhaps.

1,000,000 gun owners in NJ. Christie won by 80,000 votes. The gun vote doesn't have to be every gun owner. If 10% will change their vote based on 2A issues, it can alter the election. The fact that there is debate and not consensus among gun owners about who they will vote for is a problem for Christie. My impression of the last election was that just about every gun owner that I talked to had an "anyone but Corzine" approach, especially after OGAM. I don't get the impression that they will be thinking "anyone but Sweeney." If, on the other hand, Christie makes some of those needed changes, he may keep some or even most of those "gun votes" that he got last time. It's just math, and Christie, by doing nothing, is working the wrong side of the equation.

Agreed. The election will be more dynamic than just this one issue, but I think Mr. Mulshine's point was only that Christie can't win without the gun vote, and I think he's right. The fact that Christie had Marcia Karrow out campaigning at gun clubs last election means that he knows that too.

The message in the article is clear - this time around, Christie will not have the 100% backing of gun owners that he did when he ran against Corzine (when he won by only 80,000 votes, and only after Marcia Karrow canvased every gun club in the state for him). If he is running, he must have the gun vote to win the next election and the same thing that got it for him the first time, Corzine and OGAM, isn't in play this time. There are a number of very simple things that Christie could have done at the executive level since being elected: eliminate the illegal additional forms at the municipal PD level, mandate that municipal PD’s issue permits within 30 days as required by law, he could change the definition of “substantially identical” to exclude things like flash suppressors and bayonet lugs, he could have the AG recommend changes to the AW list (there is a provision of the AWB that asks for AG recommendations about firearms on the AW list), how about a statement from the AG that .22 rifles are not "substantially identical," he could have clearly defined “reasonable deviations” so we don’t have to worry about a 7 year prison sentence for stopping to pick up a friend on the way to the range (or stopping to eat, or use the bathroom), he could have backed off the illegal regulations to record personal data when purchasing other than HP ammo, he could stop fighting to keep one gun a month, he could stop fighting to keep the "justifiable need" clause. He has dug himself into a hole with gun owners and time is running out for him to dig himself out. I think Mr. Mulshine’s article is very clear – “Hey Gov. you’re going to lose the next election if you don’t take some simple, reasonable steps to take some of the pressure off of the legal, responsible gun owners in NJ.” No one is asking him to make it easier for criminals to have guns. All of those laws can stay in place (possession for an unlawful purpose, possession by prohibited persons, etc.). We just want a little relief for the good guys. Sweeney might be willing to do some of those things, and that's a big problem for Christie.

Please email me your contact information and we can talk off line. Me email is in my signature block below. I can't promise anything, but perhaps NJ2AS can help with this one.

You should check with an attorney, but here is the statute: Also, no magazines over 15 rounds and, leave the Hollow Points home - there is no exemption to transport them between residences.

This is a really good guide for jurors: http://www.fija.org/...rs_Handbook.pdf And this is a great video (part of a series): http://www.videojug..../jury-history-2

Ask him for a copy of the document and please post it.

...and Please donate the $100 to a pro-gun organization.

...added one more document.

Not likely in this case, Mark, because of the nature of the challenge to the new exemptions. They either violate OPRA or they don't. There is no deal to be cut. They would have to rewrite the exemptions.

Update: Sorry that I have not posted an update to our case in a while, but there was a very interesting development that we could not talk about until it was official. In short, our case has been consolidated with an ACLU case that also challenges the new exemption rules. We view this as a positive development. This does not mean that we are working with the ACLU, but it does mean that both organizations have an interest in the new rules being struck down and that puts us on the same side. I have added several documents to the OP for your reference. For those who have not heard, Asbury Park and Manalapan have both eliminated their additional forms. Both of those wins have their roots in this case. Thank you to everyone who has provided their continued support, it has been essential to the ongoing success of OEC.

Jo-Jo's in Hamilton is pretty good. They're always packed.

I agree with PizzaBob.

East Brunswick? I am a reference for someone who recently turned in an application in East Brunswick. I got the reference letter last week, just a few days after he turned in the application. I mailed it back Friday and got a call from the Detective Wednesday. So, there can't be much of a pile.