Krdshrk

The problem with magnets is that if your shirt bunches up or shifts improperly you'll get magnets sticking to each other and causing weird ride ups or possible issues. Also they could stick to the gun as well (a much more likely case).

Spoke to VERTX at Sig Premier Media day in Vegas. They have a new line of Concealed Carry button down shirts that I think are excellent. The top buttons are standard buttons, but the bottom ones are actually snaps. Paired with an underlayer you're not going to print or bunch up and it's much better for draw. https://vertx.com/guardian-stretch-ls I hope to get a couple soon to test out.

There's the NJGF-list section for non-firearm/firearm accessory sales. However if you're looking to promote a businesses then you will need to become a forum vendor.

Yes it's down - it's SHOT Show week and they may not be able to get to it. Posting on a forum about another forum is pretty poor etiquette though.

They need a safe space to go cry.

Thanks to @gunforhirefor sharing this. Added to the pinned post.

I used to - won't be going Saturday but it should be a great day for you. Wear boots - some the pits there can get fairly muddy.

From Kurt Lundy on FB: (((ANJRPC Lawsuit Update))) Personal Transcript From Today's Hearing with Judge Williams _______________________________________ Judge Williams Enters the Courtroom at 1:36 PM ((( CONSOLIDATION ))) Judge Williams thinks its fair to say that both parties want to consolidate but maybe have not agreed on which judge to consolidate with. Angela Cai makes it a point to say that she doesn't want to wait until the courts start making rulings for parties to sway their opinions on which Judge one may favor that leans towards their argument. The Judge brings up the letter David Jensen from the Koons case submitted around noon just before the court hearing. The letter pretty much had to do with the reasonings why he doesn't believe Koons should be consolidated to another Judge. Dan states that he did not see the letter from Jensen however the Judge gave him a quick summary. Dan thinks that at this point the state has stepped in quicksand. Factors in Rule 42 more so favor consolidation into the Koons case rather than Koons into Siegel. Dan honestly believes that it's highly unlikely for Judge Bumb's outcome in her TRO decision to change in the preliminary injunction stage. He believes that the state only wants this in order to pick a favorable judge. Judge Williams says no one has any idea on how she will rule on a firearm's case. Especially seeing how she hasn't ruled on one yet. Dan thinks the state doesn't want to go with Judge Bumb because she has already ruled against them. First filed rules state that the first filed judge makes the decision on how consolidation is handled, however it does not say which way the consolidation goes. Dan makes it a point to say that the dockets were filed within minutes of each other. 4763 and 4764. Associated numbers come in when you open the shell. Koons was technically filed first. Dan thinks that if the state really wanted to save money they would prefer the case to be consolidated into the Koons Lawsuit. Angela Cai thinks that Dan only wants Judge Bumb because it provided a favorable ruling the plaintiffs. Koons succeeded in their order to show clause. The Siegel case is way behind even though Williams had the earlier docket number. Judge Williams was very surprised when she went to set a court date but noticed that Judge Bumb already set her first hearing for a date sooner than she was able to in the system. Williams' says to thinks that anybody would want to Judge shop her to view both cases is a bit disingenuous seeing how she's the newbie. Angela Cai states that decisions in consolidations always goes to the 1st docket number. She believes that the main reason to consolidate is to prevent inconsistencies. The Siegel case is much more vast than Koons. Cai says that they haven't submitted an appeal yet. Mentions that the Preliminary Injunction hearing dates haven't been set. Wanted to wait until today's ruling to submit. ((( TRO AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ))) From what I got Dan is looking for a TRO on just the Sensitive Places and the Preliminary Injunction on most of the other sections in the lawsuit. The Standing, Historical Tradition and Irreparable Harm argument from the state is basically the same. Dan thinks standing in his case is much stronger. The analysis to historical traditions applies to all of the other sensitive places. Very little has to be done based on Judge Bumb's opinion. The Judge Williams questioned Dan saying that if Judge Bumb Has already resolved most of the issues, why does he need a decision from her? Dan Believes that consolidation should be decided before the TRO in Siegel. Judge Williams was surprised by this and ask Cai if she agrees with what Dan said. Cai says the decision is solely up to her on that matter. This saves Judge Williams from having to use extra resources in order to make a ruling. Dan thinks most of the work is already done. He believes that Judge Williams should use Judge Bumb's 60 page opinion to make a ruling, seeing how 98% of the work is technically already completed. He tells Judge Williams that she should map out the analysis already done by Bumb because it can be directly applied to all the other sensitive places. Dan says the state has interpreted Bruen wrong by picking and choosing sections of it without full context. Bruen provides a broad sense of self defense outside the home. The state and legislators went on record saying how they will undermine the Bruen decision. On December 22nd the day the law was signed, The Governor, The Attorney General, Gifford's, Assemblyman and the Speaker all gave their personal and unconstitutional reasons on why they believe citizens shouldn't be able carry firearms. The moment you walk out of your front door you have to lock up your firearm under this law. Which defeats the purpose of the right to carry. The state uses outliers to explain historical tradition but it wasn't long standing. They cited Texas law that only lasted a year. The State is trying to make up artificial context to support their argument . Heller and McDonald both dealt with possession. Bruen is all about outside the home. All three cases dealt with modern handguns. Dan cites Page 21-33 of Bruen/Sensitive Places. We had pretty much the same so called sensitive places back in 1791. There are no new sensitive places in 2023. On Tuesday the brief from the state claims that Bruen invited States to interpret which it didn't. Bruen says there should be a broad sense of carry except in places where core governmental functions happen. Dan says crowds don't count. Everywhere is crowded. New Jersey is the most dense and crowded state in the United States. Reminding the court on standing. The Attorney General is by constitution the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in New Jersey. The Court could trump the AG to make sure he doesn't do anything inconsistent. The Judge asked how does the 5 sensitive places in the Koons case translate here? Cai doesn't think the Judge should look at those in this Lawsuit. Judge Williams has a suspicion that the state wants her to reverse Judge Bumb's Decision. She asks why she shouldn't think this? Judge has been struggling with the motion to consolidate for the past 2 days. Says she favors Bumb more on this matter. It appears that Kai thinks it would be better to consolidate the other way. Siegel has many more provisions. Judge Williams questions whether the only thing left is a Preliminary Injunction and to consolidate this case into Koons. Cai states that she doesn't think the remaining places correlate to Judge Bumb's opinion. Judge says again that she doesn't think she needs to deal with the temporary restraining order at all. She mentions that the plaintiffs have conceded to the consolidation attempt. Williams' thinks that Bumb's opinion holds a lot of weight. Judge Williams reminisced on the fact that Dan mentioned that this case is 98% done. She then ask him if there's another 14 or so sensitive places that have not been discussed what is the other 2% that hes talking about seeing how Bumb only spoke about 5 places so far. Dan says that the 2% includes actually entering the order on the remaining sensitive places. There's no additional Bruen analysis that needs to be done in order to add those extra places. The state's historical examples on both cases are all the same. Cai claims that she has more evidence that Judge Bumb doesn't have to support not granting a temporary restraining order in the remaining places. Cai cites exhibit.... *5 - a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; *8 - a child care facility, including a day care center; *10 - a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; *22 - a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; The claims and evidence are only currently before Judge Williams and have not been visited by Judge Bumb yet. Section 9 - a nursery school, pre-school, zoo, or summer camp Section 10 - Parks and Beaches are only talking about merit problems. Cai Brought up the fact that places like Central Park and (I believe she referred to Fairmont park) banned firearms and that many other parks followed their restrictions soon after. She also brought up the following Sections..... *11 - youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; *18 - a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; *23 - a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; Cai Went on to say that these sections simply didn't exist in the founding time period. Says places like airports didn't exist either. She also cited Texas law where public shows would restrict firearms and it could also tie into movie sets. Judge Williams then cuts Cai off and says that all she thinks she's hearing is to revisit Bumb's opinion. Williams honestly believes that one judge should be deciding these things. It serves the best interests of everyone. Bumb's opinion on Bruen is extensive and exhaustive. Visually viewing the stress on Judge William's face she says that she's struggling with how to address what's before her today. She goes on to say that Bumb has the perfect roadmap to reach a resolution. Cai brings up the Supreme Courts Decision to uphold the 2nd Circuit's Stay on NY's carry law and that she saw how they respected the judicial process. Judge Williams saw what they said and wasn't tricked by the ruling. Judge Williams' then goes on to say that The Supreme Court has spoken. Sometimes we wish they were less ambiguous however this isn’t the case this time, is it. Mic Drop As Cai proceeds to go deeper into her argument the judge has more and more concerns about not consolidating. Cai thinks the Judge should reach a decision on the remaining places. Williams goes on to say that both parties brief and supplemental briefs were written and submitted in superb fashion. Dan says that Justice Alito's opinion yesterday shows that he isn't happy with what's going on. He further presses that Koons reasoning carries over to the remaining sensitive places. Dan mentions that the state never Brought up churches and their unique situation. One of the plaintiffs houses of worship is attached to a school. So it effectively eliminates their ability to carry under this law. He then cites the Multi Use Purpose/Law is too overbroad. Judge Williams then goes on to question if this portion of the law is worthy of TRO?(meaning should it be pushed into the PI stage) Dan responds by saying that this is a major 2nd amendment problem. Places like strip malls have multiple stores that are attached to each other in a development. If one of the stores is an educational institution then the entire building would be considered a sensitive place including the parking lot. Which poses a major risk to plaintiffs and their right to carry. Cai's response to this is to refer back to standing. Judge Williams then starts to think for a moment, then proceeds to call for a 15 minute recess. When she returns she states that when it comes to the 5 sections of the law that a TRO was placed on, She finds no reason to have a different result than what Judge Bumb granted. She then goes on to say that consolidation of Siegel into Koons is the appropriate course of action. It would save many of the court's resources and also mentions that the court has discretion due to the unique situation, based upon the close timing of both cases being filled. There's a couple different ways to look at it but technically the Koons case was filed first. Preliminary Injunction briefing schedule is set to be made soon. Judge Williams also said that her opinion and orders will be released either tonight or tomorrow. More than likely tomorrow.

Cleaned this up a bit - stop name calling, stop fighting amongst ourselves.

Forum moderators will try to keep this up to date as often as possible. This topic is locked down from discussion to keep it as clean as possible. Please let us know if anything needs to be changed/updated/clarified. Thanks!

I added this here - please let me know if anything else is needed to be added or changed. And of course, you'll be getting some swag!

ANJRPC has given us this handy dandy list. Updated with info from 6/20/23 ANJRPC List disappeared - updated with GFH list (not as easy to read) As of 1/9/2023 - here is the official list of places that you may carry by Code Section (PL 2022 Ch 131) 7(a)(12) - public libraries and museums 7(a)(15) - bars, restaurants and places that serve alcohol 7(a)(17) - entertainment facilities, including but not limited to theaters, stadiums, museums, racetracks anywhere where concerts are performed 7(a)(24) - private property 7(b)(1) - while operating a motor vehicle All other elements remain in effect and this list only remains enjoined until an appellate court grants a stay (if they do). As of 1/30/2023 - the TRO has been expanded to cover: 7(a)(10) a park, beach, recreation facility or area or playground owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit, or any part of such a place, which is designated as a gun free zone by the governing authority based on considerations of public safety; NOTE - PLAYGROUNDS are still off-limits N.J.A.C. 7:2–2.17(b) [preexisting law]: State Park Service property. 7(a)(18) a casino and related facilities, including but not limited to appurtenant hotels, retail premises, restaurant and bar facilities, and entertainment and recreational venues located within the casino property; The Court also acknowledged the State’s concession that “school, college, university, or other educational institution” is to be read narrowly to apply to traditional schools such as are regulated by the State. Thus, the prohibition on carrying in schools does not apply to, for example, motorcycle classes, firearms training, Sunday school within a church, karate classes, and music lessons. Further, the Court acknowledged the State’s concession that notwithstanding the very broad language used in the statute (“any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking area”) the scope of prohibition on multiuse property (strip malls, office buildings, churches with schools, etc.) is limited only to the actual prohibited use itself and not other uses and also does not include shared features such as shared parking lots, hallways, elevators, etc. Allowed as of 5/16/2023 due to Preliminary Injunction: 7(a)(6) within 100 feet of a place where a public gathering, demonstration or event is held for which a government permit is required, during the conduct of such gathering, demonstration or event; 7(a)(9) Zoo 7(a)(20) an airport or public transportation hub (Only curbside drop off/pickup and air travel pursuant to federal law - eg unloaded, locked container for travel) 7(a)(21) a health care facility (Medical office and ambulatory care facility only) 7(a)(23) a public location being used for making motion picture or television images for theatrical, commercial or educational purposes, during the time such location is being used for that purpose; 7(a)(24) - private property (property that is open to the public - businesses, etc. Including curtilage of private property - driveways, front walks, lawns, etc.; You are also allowed on private property if invited) Also removed as of 5/16/23: 4(a) and (b): Liability insurance requirement. Portion of N.J.S. 2C:58-4(c) authorizing the police to interview the persons endorsing the carry permit application. Further Clarification as of 5/16/23: Maximum of 2 handguns are allowed on you for carry purposes. If you are in a vehicle, any additional firearms fall under transportation laws. You cannot carry in the following locations: 7(a)(1) a place owned, leased, or under the control of State, county or municipal government used for the purpose of government administration, including but not limited to police stations; 7(a)(2) a courthouse, courtroom, or any other premises used to conduct judicial or court administrative proceedings or functions; 7(a)(3) a State, county, or municipal correctional or juvenile justice facility, jail and any other place maintained by or for a governmental entity for the detention of criminal suspects or offenders; 7(a)(4) a State-contracted half-way house; 7(a)(5) a location being used as a polling place during the conduct of an election and places used for the storage or tabulation of ballots; 7(a)(7) a school, college, university or other educational institution, and on any school bus; 7(a)(8) a child care facility, including a day care center; 7(a)(9) a nursery school, pre-school, or summer camp; 7(a)(10) Playgrounds 7(a)(11) youth sports events, as defined in N.J.S.5:17-1, during and immediately preceding and following the conduct of the event, except that this provision shall not apply to participants of a youth sports event which is a firearm shooting competition to which paragraph (3) of subsection b. of section 14 of P.L.1979, c.179 (C.2C:58-6.1) applies; 7(a)(13) a shelter for the homeless, emergency shelter for the homeless, basic center shelter program, shelter for homeless or runaway youth, children’s shelter, child care shelter, shelter for victims of domestic violence, or any shelter licensed by or under the control of the Juvenile Justice Commission or the Department of Children and Families; 7(a)(14) a community residence for persons with developmental disabilities, head injuries, or terminal illnesses, or any other residential setting licensed by the Department of Human Services or Department of Health; 7(a)(16) a Class 5 Cannabis retailer or medical cannabis dispensary, including any consumption areas licensed or permitted by the Cannabis Regulatory Commission established pursuant to section 31 of P.L.2019, c.153 (C.24:6I-24); 7(a)(19) a plant or operation that produces, converts, distributes or stores energy or converts one form of energy to another; 7(a)(21) a health care facility, including but not limited to a general hospital, special hospital, psychiatric hospital, public health center, diagnostic center, treatment center, rehabilitation center, extended care facility, skilled nursing home, nursing home, intermediate care facility, tuberculosis hospital, chronic disease hospital, maternity hospital, outpatient clinic, dispensary, assisted living center, home health care agency, residential treatment facility, residential health care facility 7(a)(22) a facility licensed or regulated by the Department of Human Services, Department of Children and Families, or Department of Health, other than a health care facility, that provides addiction or mental health treatment or support services; 7(a)(25) any other place in which the carrying of a firearm is prohibited by statute or rule or regulation promulgated by a federal or State agency. 3rd Circuit Stay effective 6/20/23 A mid-level federal appeals court has partially granted and partially denied New Jersey’s motion to temporarily reinstate the carry-killer law. As a result, the lower court’s injunction blocking most of the carry-killer law will be partially suspended during the state’s appeal. This means that for the duration of the appeal there are “sensitive places” where the carry-killer law prohibits carry and other places where the carry-killer law remains blocked by the court. The decision means that for the duration of the appeal gun owners CANNOT lawfully continue to carry in the following locations: Within 100 feet of a public gathering, demonstration, or event requiring a government permit; Zoo; Park, beach, recreational facility or area owned or controlled by a State, county or local government unit designated as a gun-free zone; Publicly owned or leased library or museum; Bar or restaurant where alcohol is served and any other site or facility where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises; Entertainment facility; Casino and related facilities; Health care facility. You can continue to carry in the following locations: Vehicles Private property Public film locations Duty to inform is in effect as of 7/1/23 Training Requirements - Revised as of 9/17/23 https://www.anjrpc.org/page/NJRevisesCarryTrainingRequirements Excerpt as follows:

Maks and I will be at SHOT Show all next week as well so we're fairly tied up.

What caliber is it? I'm pretty sure it's .45ACP but just wanted to confirm.

https://jxtactical.com/ Check out their fat guy holsters.

FYI the Girsan Hi Powers are clones of the original version - but you may not want to go that route.

They didn't put a specific time frame on the TRO. It's until the case is re-heard, and the judge also refused to give the state extra time to gather "historical documents"...

Correct - in light of the FPC/SAF/CNJFO/NJ2AS case's TRO + the Range v US AG case (What NJ is relying on to make their case), Judge Williams is re-reviewing the case as the TRO has direct impact.

ANJRPC Siegel case Hearing Notes (taken from reddit) Siegel TRO hearing now Thursday 130pm, they will also argue the consolidation push by the state. Judge Williams ordered all revised briefs to be submitted by 8pm Wednesday. She ordered simultaneous briefing by ANJRPC and the State. She will not review anything until after Wednesday 8pm. She said the court (she) does not work past 6pm. Lol. Looks like she will be reading the briefs Thursday AM and prepping for 130 hearing. The TRO briefings will be amended to reflect anything from Koons TRO and Range Case. The Range Case is no longer good law and state relied on it in several aspect of their original TRO opposition briefing. She will not let this matter go into this week. Judge Williams said Koons TRO has material impact on this case. Judge Williams wants to fully study the Bumb ruling and the Range Case Matter. Judge Williams didn’t think the law went into effect until July 2023, Dan Schmutter explained to her most of the law is in place and thousands of people constitutional rights are being violated and that his case is far broader than the Koons matter. I didn’t think Judge Williams was that prepared for the hearing, but I also don’t think it was coincidence the TRO by Bumb was filed at 930. I think she knew it was coming and would give her time, also think she really wants to make sure she is ruling again a much more senior Judge Bumb. Angela Cai, was there with the assistant AG. Several other AG office staff there. All looked under 25 years old. From what we know, Judge Williams has to rule on the consolidation as was first case in, but unsure if she has to also take the case. I believe Judge Williams could agree to consolidate but then Bumb could be the Judge. Dan Schumutter wasn’t sure and needed to see if was procedural just for William To rules, but Bumb could take the case.

District Court issues TRO in Koons, CNJFO, et al v. Reynolds, orders expedited briefing on Preliminary Injunction. January 9, 2023 - In a 60 page opinion, US District Court Judge, Renee Marie Bumb today issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining NJ from enforcing sections of the carry-killer bill, A4769. BUMB, United States District Judge As set forth in the accompanying Opinion of today’s date, Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing for emergent temporary relief. As such, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED, and the Court RESERVES its decision as to the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. [Docket No. 8.] Accordingly, IT IS on this 9th day of January 2023 ORDERED that Defendants, as well as their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys (and any other persons in active concert or participation with them) are TEMPORARILY RESTRAINED from enforcing the following provisions of Chapter 131 of the 2022 Laws of New Jersey: Section 7(a), subparts 12, 15, 17, and 24, and Subsection 7(b)(1); and it is further ORDERED that Plaintiffs are EXCUSED from giving security; and it is further ORDERED that this Temporary Restraining Order shall REMAIN IN EFFECT pending a hearing and ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [Docket No. 8]; and it is further ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer regarding an expedited discovery and briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion and propose such schedule to the Court within three (3) business days from the date hereof. Judge Bumb's order comes just 4 days after attorneys for plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners (CNJFO), and New Jersey Second Amendment Society (NJ2AS) appeared in oral arguments in US District Court. The Court has also ordered that parties provide the Court with an expedited schedule on the motion for a preliminary injunction.

You can be allowed in without a referral - you will simply need letters of reference. Have you completed the required safety course? If you have not, get that done first before applying.

What position are you carrying at?

I'm not quite as big but I do have a paunch. If you're going IWB you will need at least a size bigger pants. I've gone a size up on my last pants purchases to prep for IWB. Been wearing my G48 in a PHLSter Enigma Express holster AIWB. I'm able to shift it up and down safely if it's digging in anywhere or uncomfortable in any way.

Great course - I've taken this course and James is a great teacher.