galapoola

Went to the NJSP site http://www.nj.gov/njsp/info/forms.html Do not see a 212a form there, used their search tool as well Ditto with the http://trpolice.org/ site when you use their search feature Why not make it easy? More harassment and inconvenience by our public servants

it's always been the law, the court just reminded the dopes at the PD that they need to follow the law just like the rest of us. When I went to Toms River a few years back for a new pistol permit they had all the extra forms, when an family member went down recently only the forms in the statute were required. I'm guessing the NJ2AS had everything to do with this, bravo to the judges

what happens in NJ in a NJ court (as opposed to a Federal court) is totally independent of SCOTUS. Heller and McDonald dealt with two places that had 100% bans on one aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The NJ courts don't see either of the SCOTUS decisions as changing anything here in NJ because we could buy most handguns and most long guns including transporting them and owning them under the current scheme. Once the definition of "to bear" is defined and located by SCOTUS (inside the house vs. outside the house) then the three branches of NJ government will have to make some changes. What makes Drake v Filko so important to NJ is that it is a NJ specific federal civil rights law suit. The Nappan case is a NJ specific case to be heard in a NJ State court and also could be a game changer although SCOTUS would be a better win overall for all of the USA.

I think only NJ, Hawaii & MD are may issue in law but no issue in practice. Even dumb states like CA, MA & NY have friendly counties that issue. Western MA, Upstate NY and counties in CA outside the three big metro areas all issue carry permits. Even IL allows unloaded carry in a fanny pack and they will join free America in 2014. Christi can relax the need, maybe, although the executive branch has no say over the judicial and they are the issuing athority. I'd rather a court decision forcing our dear leaders to change the law. Anything else would be at the whim of who's in power and I trust none of them.

It's my understanding that in "conference" they review requests before the court. The filing that Gura has until Jan 9th to get in will be concidered in one of the conferences the justices have, perhaps the first one on the 10th. Could be concidered at a different conference also. The justices never reveal why a case won't be heard, it's anyones guess. If 4 justices vote to hear an appeal then the case gets put on the docket for oral arguments. Based on the decision handed down by the court of appeals, he had until Nov 25th to file. He was granted an extension for filing, Jan 9th.

Looks like the due date for the petition for a writ of certiorari is the day before the conference. From SCOTUSblog: The Justices’ next Conference is scheduled for January 10, 2014. Our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be available soon. From SCOTUS: No. 13A468 Title: John M. Drake, et al., Applicants v. Rudolph A. Filko, Judge, Superior Court of New Jersey, Passaic County, et al. Docketed: November 5, 2013 Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Case Nos.: (12-1150) ~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Nov 1 2013 Application (13A468) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 25, 2013 to January 9, 2014, submitted to Justice Alito. Nov 6 2013 Application (13A468) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until January 9, 2014. ~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~ Attorneys for Petitioners: Alan Gura Gura & Possessky, PLLC (703) 835-9085 101 N. Columbus Street, Suite 405 Alexandria, VA 22314 Party name: John M. Drake, et al.

Gura was granted an extension to file with SCOTUS on Drake v. Filko (or whatever it's called now). That should be in their hands in January and in committee this winter to decide if they'll hear the appeal. The NJ state high court is going to hear the carry case argued by Nappan. Does anyone know if CLASP is an effort independent of these? Let's say 50 people actually go through with CLASP and we have 50 bonified denied applications. Short of a Federal judge telling NJ to supply stats for 2014, (court of appeals made that request last year) what makes anyone think that can happen again? Let's say we get our stats and approval percentages drop to 80%. Then what? I'm trying to see the upside for this just like everyone else.

There is a hunting license you can buy as a non resident for some sort of squirrel, think it was a red squirrel. The beauty of that particular hunting permit is that the season is perpetual, 365 days. There is no restriction on caliber I believe but a very low round count on auto loaders, maybe 4+1. So under those conditions if they haven't changed things, a bolt or lever rifle is good and absolutely legal. Even a Marlin Camp or Ruger Mini with one of the hunting mags (4 or 5 rounds) is probably ok if they haven't been banned by name/features in the not safe act. Check the NY State hunting forums or Google "squirrel hunting permit NY", there was a bunch of chatter about this legal method for non NY'ers to have a long gun in NY.

Whatever is colder than the air will attract whatever moisture is in the air ( condensation ). Any heat source in the safe will raise the temp in the safe and moisture won't condensate. That said the heat source needs to overcome the cold in the garage. Two identical thermometers, one in one outside the safe will tell you where you're at. The heating rocks used in reptile tanks, low watt incandecant bulb or similar will heat a safe above air temp in most circumstances. Something about a safe in the garage spooks me. Most of us keep all the tools the bad guys need in the garage. Think sawzall, comealong, prybar, sledgehammer and drill.

One dead husband and a wife's shattered life is acceptable so long as dangerous guns and the bullets that kill people can be kept out of the hands of the innocent. Or so the logic would appear.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, December 9, 2013 Federal Judge Says California Attorney General Kamala Harris Wrong on Gun Control LawsCourt denies Harris’ arguments and agrees with gun rights group The Calguns Foundation, says state’s firearm waiting period laws fail to meet Constitutional muster ROSEVILLE, CA -- In a rejection of California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ stance on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, Senior Federal District Court Judge Anthony W. Ishii denied Harris’ motion for summary judgement today in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by The Calguns Foundation, indicating that California’s 10-day “waiting period” gun laws are likely unconstitutional. “The fact that a federal judge saw these laws for what they are -- baseless restraints on the exercise of a fundamental civil right -- is monumental,” explained Gene Hoffman, Chairman of The Calguns Foundation. “California’s waiting period laws for those who own guns is not Constitutional and this order really underlines the point.” In his order, Judge Ishii said that Harris has “not presented sufficient evidence to show that the [10-day waiting period laws] passes either intermediate or strict scrutiny.” About the laws being challenged in the case, named plaintiff Jeff Silvester of Hanford, California, said, “I have a license to carry a loaded firearm across the State.It is ridiculous that I have to wait another 10 days to pick up a new firearm when I’m standing there in the gun store lawfully carrying one the whole time.” “This is certainly an exciting development in Second Amendment case law,” noted Brandon Combs, an individual plaintiff in the case and the Executive Director of The Calguns Foundation. “If our Constitution means what it says, then California’s gun waiting period laws have to be overturned and law-abiding people must be allowed to exercise their rights without irrational infringements.” Regardless of the final decision at the district court, the case is virtually certain to end up at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly even the United States Supreme Court. “Cases like this one will define the limits of government regulations on firearms and Second Amendment rights,” said Combs. “We look forward to making sure laws like California’s waiting period are properly scrutinized by the courts.” Judge Ishii was appointed to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California by President Bill Clinton in 1997. A full copy of the Court’s December 9, 2013, order may be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/?p=1683. The press release announcing the lawsuit and case docket may be viewed at http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/?p=1024. The Calguns Foundation (CGF) (www.calgunsfoundation.org) is a 501©3 non-profit organization that serves its members, supporters, and the public through educational, cultural, and judicial efforts to defend and advance Second Amendment and related civil rights. Supporters may visit http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/donate to join or donate to CGF. ###

Alan Gura responds to Supreme Court not taking up Woollard gun carry rights case

build it in PA, then bring it to NJ

I'll take it, let's just not forget who we're dealing with here. For those of you who missed this 1995 campaign poster, look at the small print at the very bottom

US Court of Appeals Affirms NJ Gun Law Requiring Gun Owners Provide Justifiable Need to Own a Gun, Full-hearing Next "The defendants have appealed and will proceed to a US Court of Appeals full-hearing, which could then head to the supreme court." Who knows what the full court will do? Maybe they will review and see how dumb the majority decision is.

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see." Carry/May Issue are the current "gun control" laws before the federal courts so I suppose since almost all the cases working there way to SCOTUS are these types, these were the ones he was referring to.

There is huge difference between NY, CT & MA (throw CA in there as well). Since state permits are issued on a county level in these states, you have folks outside the big cities with what is a shall issue scheme. In MD and NJ you have a state permit issued by the state so no soup for you, next. NJ is different then in that we have carry in word but not in practice. Maybe SCOTUS was waiting for MD and NJ to bundle because unlike the others, we do not carry in practice

Don't forget Justice Scalia, who was quoted recently as saying one of the carry cases would make it to the court

Since SCOTUS never publicly gave a reason why they wouldn't take the NY case, we don't know for sure what is the standard they use in conference. It could be something as simple as too many other important cases to decide. Think of it from strictly an administrative point of view. The NY carry case is submitted. In conference they look at the case load and decide that a bunch of other cases need to be heard because no similar cases are in the que for next session. If they take the NY carry case they'd have to drop one or more cases that could never be resubmitted later on. SCOTUS knows that there is the MD case, NJ and a CA case working their way up. To delay a review of one doesn't necessarily mean carry will never be heard. NJ, NY & MD are so similar that any one could be heard and settle whether the 2nd Amendment applies outside the home. SCOTUS I'm sure knew this and maybe the logic is that they didn't have to act last session because they knew the others are on their way. MD is already submitted, NJ should follow this summer so SCOTUS will have at least 2 similar cases before it and maybe next session will be the right time for them to take one. I know much has been said about a split between circuits and that is a cause for review but this may not be the only way to be heard. I'm sure Scalia is chomping at the bit to get carry reviewed because of the way many states and lower courts have misinterpreted his opinion. They ignore the dicta and focus in on only the prayer for relief. I'm optimistic that NJ or MD will be heard.

One or two years ago a prohibited dude's live in girlfriend won a desision in PA. She had an SKS leaning up against the wall in the apartment when the police came by on an unrelated matter. Both got arrested because of a felony conviction on his record. Judge, belive it was a federal district, said no no, you can't deny girlfriend her 2nd Amendment rights, she won. It never went any further and is presedent law in PA. I think this is the one: http://www.volokh.com/2010/11/24/second-amendment-protects-gun-possession-by-the-housemates-of-felons/

When was that? If that case was pre-Heller then it could and should be re-examined. Could be why they took the case. If I'm not mistaken the concept of the 2nd Amendment being a collective militia right also has roots in NJ courts. Heller corrected that as well. Let's accept CCW no matter how it happens. If we get a favorable ruling with SCOTUS we may have to still fight here in NJ as dumb politicians can move the goal posts. If we get it through NJJ, they have less wiggle room.

They can write as many stupid laws as they wish, if SCOTUS says the 2nd Amendment is an individual right (2008), that weapons in common use today cannot be legislated inoperative (2008), that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated to the states (2010), that a core right is self defense (2008) and then this year, that the right exists outside the house (2013 if all goes well), well that doesn't give the NJ government much wiggle room. I don't believe the political makeup in Trenton would ever agree or pass a bill agreeing but that's going to be irrelevant. Now if you look at the Illinois situation, they had no carry law for civilians. A baby step for them would be to offer up a NJ style may issue and they'd have to be dragged back into court. In NJ we already have carry laws for civilians. They may be unfair and stacked against us but we have them. Our civil lawsuit is very narrow and specific namely that the state cannot limit the issue of permits on a whim (i.e. justifiable need). Once that's ruled unconstitutional, NJ has no where to go. They could leave all the statutes as is with one technical change namely that self defense is a good enough reason. It really is that simple. This is the genius behind the legal action in my opinion.

Found this on page 13 of TITLE 13. LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY CHAPTER 54. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.3 Criteria for the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun "Completion of a firearms training course substantially equivalent to the firearms training approved by the Police Training Commission as described by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6j" Complete document here

There are many Court of Appeals carry cases working their way to the Supreme Court. Alan Gura filed a petition for Cert at SCOTUS in the matter of Kachalsky v Cacace from the 2nd circuit. It could be heard in the upcoming Fall session. The earliest we'd have a decision is the end of 2013. I'm confident that the right will be extended outside the home and that anything resembling a "justifiable need" will be struck down. With that said, what are the requirements in NJ for training? Any non-police "NJ Permit to Carry a Handgun" holders out there who can speak to the training course requirement?

All the more reason why it's important that Muller v. Maenza reaches SCOTUS. It is custom tailored and laser focused on the one thing that keeps the population unarmed. I don't believe NJ could wiggle out of a high court ruling banning discretionary approval (may issue via justifiable need). MD and NY's cases are a good substitute in that they concern the same theme, namely a state official gets to decide who can exercise a civil right and who can not. The lawsuits can even be joined with one another depending on the timing. I truly believe that the only thing that can thwart 2nd Amendment restoration in NJ is an Obama appointment. So long as we have the 5 who gave us McDonald & Heller, we should be good to go.