PDM

This is great and about time. The CCW lawsuit is obviously important, but theabuses of the permitting system should be low hanging fruit that anyone concerned about good government should be upset about. Excellent that Frank points this out in the press release. This is not just a 2A issue! I've sent in my $50 and will donate again.

This means absolutely nothing. It is a state court decision and there should no expectation that a NJ state court would recognize that Heller/McDonald provide a constitutional right to carry outside the home when no Federal Court has so held (at least not explicitly).

I don't think any compromise on 2A issues whatsoever is required to make progress on public safety and essentially "box out" the gun grabbers. For example, take the "gun show loophole" (ie background checks for private sales). Feldman's position is that gun shows are legitimate gatherings of individuals seeking to purchase firearms and accessories or simply share their enthusiasm for firearms. He proposes that shows in fact be protected, and rightly points out that a huge number of guns hused in crimes are in fact stolen, not purchased at gun shows. However, if you agree that people with violent criminal records shouldn't be allowed to purchase or own guns, it should be a relatively simple matter to set up a procedure for NICS checks for private sales at gun shows. Transfers through inheritance, to family members, etc. could be excepted. An alternative could be, leave the choice to the individual. You want to sell a gun to a complete stranger at a gun show or elsewhere? Fine, you can do so without breaking any laws. BUT, if that gun is later used in a crime, the law should provide that YOU are criminally and civilly liable. You want to immunize yourself from liability, conduct a NICS check and if the purchaser is clean you are held harmless and free of any liability for subsequent use of the gun. That leaves the choice up to the individual -- you are comfortable transferring to a family member or friend, go right ahead and there is no need for a check. That's just one example. Background checks don't violate the 2A. Yes, I agree 100% that The Brady Bunch, Violence Policy Center, etc. are NOT interested in compromise and are a bunch of liars. They are not the target audience. The target audience are the majority of Americans who agree that people have a right to keep and bear arms, but are turned off by the NRA's absolutist and obstructionist rhetoric.

I just came across an article -- "Gun Owners Must Take Center Stage" by Richard Feldman, former NRA lobbyist, in The Huffington Post of all places. It mentioned that he has formed a new organization called Independent Gun Owners of America, essentially seeking to "bridge the gap" and conduct a rational dialogue on gun issues that might find practical solutions to crime and violence without infringing on law abiding citizens' second amendment rights. For those not familiar with Feldman, it appears that he is a true 2A advocate who also understands that the NRA is often more interested in the fight (and fund raising) than in practical solutions. I really like the mission statement of this new group. I know, there are plenty of you out there who are absolutists and like to spout the mantra "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand." But that BS won't hold any water in places like NJ, where the NRA is about as popular in the general population as the klan. Anyone else familiar with his group? I'm curious as to what people's opinions are of Feldman.

For anyone who believes that the NJ AWB will be going away, I have bad news for you. It ain't. We have a much, much better chance of getting at least limited relief for concealed carry and an improvement in the FID card system than we do of obtaining any change in the AWB ban. I've said before as have others, the AWB, while annoying, still permits one to own a whole host of rifles adequate for self-defense, from mini-14s, to Colt Match Targets, to Saigas, to lever actions. The fact that we can't have a flash hider and a pistol grip on the same gun simply isn't enough to prevail in a lawsuit, and there is even less of a chance for this ever to be changed legislatively. You want an AR with a flash hider and a collapsible stock? Move to PA. As for the question -- "when will things change?" Here's the barometer. When we can muster 10,000 people for a 2A rights rally in Trenton I'll believe some change is possible outside a courtroom.

It's nice to hear some common sense once in a while. People on these internet gun forums often do seem myopic sometimes. The inane gun laws in this state irritate me to noend, but am I going to leave a good job, friends and family to move to PA to take advantage of better gun laws? No. Fact is, NJ has some of the nicest areas in the country. Whether it's the shore, the affluent suburbs in North Jersey, or the more rural areas of the Northwest and South, it's generally a pretty nice state. Yes, we're taxed to death, but proximity to NY provides an awful lot of opportunity for anyone with a decent education. Plus, in the suburbs where I have lived for 10 years, I have not heard of a single burglary, let alone a home invasion or car jacking. Stay away from Newark, Patterson, Trenton and Camden, and the rest of the state is generally pretty safe. From what I've heard and read, you really can't say the same for many rural and small town areas in other more "gun friendly" states.

Well, whoever wrote it makes the vaild point that a rally is needed. The Governor mentioned that there is no "political groundswell" in NJ to change the gun laws. Unfortunately, he seems to be correct. Given how bad -- actually outrageous is a better word -- NJ gun laws are, a large, well attended rally is long overdue. The problem is, even with 1 million gun owners in this state give or take, it seems next to impossible to get any significant number to participate. The Brian Aitken rally might have been such an event, but the Governor cut that off by granting a pardon and (I am guessing) conditioning the pardon on Aitken's disavowal of the rally, which led to its cancellation. Given how outrageous the laws are and how many gun owners live in the state, don't you think we ought to be able to assemble 5000 people in Trento for a rally? What about 10000? Seems like a pipe dream. I blame the ANJRPC for not doing more to organize such an event. They are the one, centralized voice of all gun owners in this state with serious resources. They have 20 or 30 member clubs, a website and a mailing list. If each ANJRPC member club committed to sending 10 people to a rally in Trenton, that alone would attract 300 people -- at least a start. ANJRPC's members include hunters, sport/target shooters and people just interested in self-defense. They should be leading the charge in organzing a rally with the participation of every member club.

Forget the equal protection argument. I think it should have been made, but apprently plaintiff's counsel in the SAF lawsuit didn't think of it or wasn't interested in making it. If it hasn't gotten made by now it will never be made.

Christie made the same population density argument to Sean Hannity in an interview when he was running for Governor. I was hoping it was an off the cuff dodge of a question he didn't want to answer, but now it is quite apparent that he isn't moving off this position. The argument is patently nonsensical and really detracts from Christie's credibility. This seals it for me. I like most of what Christie is doing but I simply will not vote for him again, either for Governor or national office.

Their response is due March 16. The state has some ground to make up, given the POS papers they filed so far. Hopefully these will be just as bad. I'm encouraged by the fast track. The NY Kochalsky case was mired down for a while. The NJ case is proceeding pretty quickly.

So, it appears that Duane Morris, the lawfirm that filed the case for SAF and ANJRPC in NJ, has withdrawn as counsel. David Jensen, the Duane Morris attorney working on the case, has replaced Duane Morris as counsel for plaintiffs. It appears that he is no longer an associate at Duane Morris. The pleading lists his office in NYC, so I assume he is out on his own. Does anyone know anything about this? Not a positive development in my view. No matter how good of an attorney Jensen may be, having a real firm like Duane Morris behind the suit was only a good thing.

Look, I think the AWB is ridiculous and doesn't improve public safety one iota. The state will argue otherwise. Perhaps, IF the court applies a strict scrutiny test, a constitutional challenge might succeed. I truly hope that would be the case. I'm just being realistic. I think a challenge of the AWB will be one of the last legal challenges brought, and if we don't win on CCW, you can forget any hope of challenging the AWB in court. It's just a harder case to make.

I think you'll be waiting quite a while. In a nutshell, the NJ CCW statute is subject to challenge because it effectively shuts the door on any possibility of exercising 2A rights outside the home. The AWB, on the other hand, while undoubtedly stupid, doesn't prevent one from owning a semiautomatic rifle. You just can't own one with more than one of the "evil" features. Try arguing that a Colt match target is any less effective for self-defense or sporting purposes than an unadulterated A. In fact, the very arguments we use to show that the AWB is stoopid (all the banned features are effectively cosmetic) are exactly the same arguments the state can use to argue that it doesn't violate the 2A because it constitutes "reasonable regulation" (according to the state) and not a ban. I don't see the AWB falling to a legal challenge any time in the forseeable future.

Let's try to break this down. If we agree that people 1) convicted of a violent felony (note that I stress violent -- there is legitimate debate whether a conviction for a non-violent felony should strip you of a constitutional right) or 2)that have a demonstrable mental illness (ie, have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or other institution) should not be allowed to purchase or possess a firearm, then we at least have an objective starting point. Let's call this Goal #1 If you don't agree with Goal #1 then there is nothing to talk about. If you do agree, and I'm guessing that the vast majority of gun owners do agree, then the entire conversation revolves around implementation; establishing rules, laws and and procedures so that Goal #1 can be accomplished to as much as possible (recognizing that no system is perfect) WITHOUT infringing on the rights of people that don't fall within either category (let's call this Goal #2). It's as simple as that. In my view, given the current state of technology, it should not be that hard to implement procedures that largely achieve Goal #1 AND Goal #2. However, we unfortunately run into two problems. --First Problem: virtually all of the procedures proposed to ostensibly accomplish Goal #1 (eg Brady checks, FID cards, permits)are proposed by people and organizations (like the Brady Bunch, Chuckie Schumer, Crypt Keeper Lautenberg, etc) who really don't want to accomplish Goal #1, but rather want to completely inhibit and prevent the realization of Goal #2 (in other words, what they really want is to make it as hard as possible, or impossible, for anyone to own guns, at least other than -- perhaps -- very limited ownership of limited types of guns for hunting and/or target shooting). To make it worse, these people and organizations are outright liars. They claim to respect the Second Amendment and the right of the law abiding to own firearms, but then do everything in their power to subvert that right. Have Brady et al EVER seen a law restricting gun ownership that they didn't like? --Second Problem: People like us aren't fooled and, while in theory we agree that Goal #1 should be accomplished, we can't work with Brady, Schumer, Bloomberg, etc. because they are liars we know what they really want to accomplish. So, what should we do? In my view, we need to stop being afraid. We don't always have to be the "ministry of no." If a proposal comes along that might actually accomplish Goal #1, we should consider it, address it, and try to make it as workable as possible up to the point that it impedes Goal #2. Specifically, I believe background checks are a good idea IF they can be done quickly (ie in a matter of hours at most). Sharing of information among State and Federal authorities regarding mentally ill people who should not own guns is a good thing. Heck, I think a DUI should disqualify a person from owning a gun for a certain probationary period. If you are reckless and stupid enough to drive drunk, you should loose your right to own a gun. I also think a permit to carry is a good idea, if it requires only objective criteria. That's about it. No FID cards, registries, "assault weapons" bans, mag limitations, etc.

"PK90, I'm going to spare you the trouble this time. There goes that "S" word again!" Sorry, I guess I missed prior discussions on this and don't mean tor repoen the issue, but I was under the impression that it was fairly clear that in our beautiful state the magazine is considered part of the gun. Thus, if you are carrying an unloaded gun in a locked case, but have a loaded magazine with you (whether in the case or stored elsewhere) it as if you have a loaded gun as far as NJ is concerned. I thought there was precedent on this, but some seem to believe it is clear that carrying a loaded mag outside the gun is ok. Can someone direct me to a prior thread or elaborate? I would love to be wrong. Thanks.

Great idea. Form submitted. Just a few observations. My town (Teaneck) seems to be getting better. My initial FID app in 2008 took more than 2 months to come through. I applied for additional pistol permits in 2009 and it took 6 months and multiple calls to get them. (The PD claimed they were understaffed and, while I would normally call BS, it does appear that an officer who was about to retire was in charge of the ID bureau at the time. A different officer eventually called when my permits were ready, apologized, and waived the permit fee.) For permits applied for recently, it took 5 weeks. They've also expanded the days on which they accept apps, but still only take apps between 11 and 1 in the afternoon. I think that is one of the biggest problems -- having to take time off from work to drop off an application. You may want to ask about times in which applications can be submitted. That is definitely an area that needs to be addressed. Another thing you may want to ask is whether the a local PD hassles and actively tries to discourage applicants. I have heard that Passaic is like that. Teaneck is not -- the officers are very courteous and try to be helpful.

+1 for Lincoln Park True Value. Used them a number of times. Only downside is their hours (close at 5:30) and the guy with the FFL (Bruce) is sometimes not in the store, so you should call ahead before picking up the firearm. He charges $35 -- may be $40 now -- and has not charged me anymore even when I had two firearms delivered. Personally, I found the markup of local shops offensive.

These people are literally retarded (no offense to retarded people). As others pointed out, the bill would not change the definition of "large capacity magazine", but only reduces the allowed capacity for semi-auto rifles with a fixed mag (eg, Marlin Model 60 as someone pointed out). This would not affect semi-automatic handguns or rifles with removable magazines. Good for us I guess, but I am fairly certain that this was an oversight -- Greenwald and his buddies clearly haven't bothered to read or incapable of understanding the statute. This makes even less sense than the ban he proposed. What f*****g idiots these people are.

You're missing an essential element of their argument. Cars, books, etc. have uses that are beneficial to society. A curfew would be incredibly burdensome on society. "Hi cap" magazines, in contrast, have no utility, their argument goes, particularly since people are fully capable of defending themselves with a 10 rd mag (according to them). You may disargee with that statement, but then we are faced with the weak point in our argument: we argue that a 30 rd mag is no more dangerous that a 10 rd since a trained person can swap mags out in an instant. Well, that cuts both ways, since if you can swap mags out in an instant, as we argue, why can't you adequately defend yourself with a 10 rd magazine in the gun and one on your belt? We should be careful about not throwing logic out the window when arguing these points. The reality is, IMHO, that a 10 rd magazine is, in almost all feasible self-defense cases, going to be enough to enable a person to defend herself. But, so what. That still doesn't mean we should ban something when there is not one shred of evidence it will do any good AND there are already millions of these things legally purchased and owned already in circulation.

Yeah, that thought crossed my mind, but then I realized that Greenwald and his fellow travellers have certainly considered an even more stringent ban and concluded that they can't get away with it -- yet. I strongly disagree that we shouldn't bother injecting logic into this debate. In my view, a fundamental problem with the gun rights/gun control debate is that our side has ceded the "sensible gun control, we are just advocating common sense" argument to the Greenwalds of this world. The majority of citizens in this state probably aren't particularly interested in guns or gun rights but do care about public safety. On the issues like the proposed "hi capacity" magazine ban, their thinking probably goes something like this: "People don't really need more than 10 rounds to defend themselves or for sporting purposes. No one is trying to ban guns here, just limit capacity to keep us all safe. Makes sense to me. Those gun loons can't even agree to a simple, common sense proposal like this. I guess I should just discount anything they say..." No one ever challenges the anti-gun rights people on their own terms. If I were debating Greenwald, I would say: "Let's put aside the Constitutional and individual rights questions just for the moment. I'm not only interested in gun rights, I'm also interested in public safety. So let's look at the details of your legislation on its own terms. On what basis -- other than the desire to ban something to look like you are doing something -- have you concluded that a 10 round magazine should be considered "high capacity". What evidence do you have that this ban will help? Have you done or even looked at any studies? Have you considered the impact it will have on law abiding gun owners in this state -- not with regard to their ability to defend themselves, but with respect to the increased risk they will face of false arrest and the effective destruction of value of their lawfully owned property? Have you even attempted to balance the purported beneficial increase in public safety, against the very real negative consequences? When the state legislature previously concluded that the proper limit on magazines should 15 rounds, why was that wrong. What will stop you from concluding next year that the proper limit is 8 or 6 rounds? " etc., etc.

My one word question to Mr. Greenwald is: "Why?" For the moment, let's put aside the Constitution and the question of who needs or doesn't need 10 vs 15 round magazines. The fundamental problem here is that we have two legislators proposing a bill that will restrict previously lawful activity AND, at best, restrict the transferrability and thus the value of literally millions of dollars of legally purchased and owned merchandise. Why 10 rounds? Why not 5 or 7? Why not 20? What empirical evidence does Mr. Greenwald have that reducing the capacity of magazines will contribute one iota to public safety? Of course we know that he has none. He and his fellow travellers are simply throwing crap up against a wall and hoping something sticks. No one can believe that is sensible legislation, whatever one's stand on the gun issue. Here is the letter I sent him: "Representative Greenwald I am writing regarding NJ Bill A3807 that you are sponsoring. I have not yet seen a published copy of the bill, but I understand that it will reduce the allowed capacity of ammunition magazines from 15 to 10 under NJ law. I am quite certain that I am as concerned about public safety as you are. I do, however, believe that good legislation should serve some rational purpose. What rational purpose does your proposed bill serve? What evidence do you have that 10 rounds, as opposed to 15 rounds, will increase public safety one iota? If you have no empirical evidence, what leads you to that conclusion? Why 10 rounds? Why not 8, or 6? While I am quite certain that your bill, if enacted, will not save one life or make anyone safer, I will tell you what your bill will do. Even if there is a "grandfather clause" in the bill (which I assume it will contain to prevent hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of NJ citizens from becoming instant felons), the bill will significantly decrease the value of hundreds of thousands or millions of firearms in private hands in this State. It will greatly increase the risk that anyone found in possession of a magazine above the 10 round limit -- even if that magazine was legally purchased prior to the ban-- will be subject to false arrest and perhaps wrongful prosecution. It will render it impossible for individuals to pass many types of firearms to their heirs through their estates. It will create additional confusion and legal risk for the millions of law abiding firearms owners in this State, in violation of their Second Amendment rights, with absolutely no corresponding benefit. It will needlessly open up the state to further expensive litigation." I hope that you carefully considered these issues before sponsoring this bill, and jumping on the national gun control bandwagon that unfortunately arose to exploit the horrible tragedy in Arizona.

My understanding is that NJ courts interpret "justifiable need" to mean that you must have an actual, demonstrable threat against you. Living or working in a dangerous neighborhood isn't enough and past carjackings or other attacks aren't enough. You must be able to show that a specific person is threatening your life and that the treat is real, and even then you probably won't get the CCW. It should not be a problem for you to have your firearm with you at your place of business and transport it home unloaded and locked in your trunk, although that won't help in case of a carjacking, and in light of the Brian Aitken case, having the law on your side may not even be enough. I was at the range recently and the former Mayor of Englewood came in with a Glock strapped to his hip. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but the nepotism and favoritism shown to politicians and retired law enforcement reall amazes me.

Notice the big banner at the front of the march in the picture -- the one that says "Illinois State Rifle Association"? Well, where is the ANJRPC? If anyone is going to organize a rally it ought to be them -- they have the organization, members, resources and credibility. The Brian Aitken rally never happened but I got the sense it would have been well attended. Seems to me the ANJRPC ought to be able to set something up that would draw at least a few hundred people.

Ah, I see, your are drawing a distinction between inside and outside, not rented or owned. Vlad, I agree that, practically speaking, openly carrying your gun outdoors on your property (rented or owned) is a bad idea for the reasons you mentioned. However, under the statute I do think you might have an argument, assuming you don't get "Brian Aitkened" by the judge: "Nothing in subsections b., c. and d. of N.J.S.2C:39-5 shall be construed to prevent a person keeping or carrying about his place of business, residence, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, any firearm ..." Thus, the statute mentions "premises or land" which I read to mean that you can carry outdoors on your property, and it need not be owned, it can be "possessed" (which, I would argue, can only mean rented in this context, otherwise the statute could and should simply only have said "owned.") It all boils down to what legal risks you are willing to take, balanced against the perceived threat. Personally, I avoid all physical confrontation if at all possible, especially when carrying. Carrying a firearm is a huge responsibility and it should force you to swallow your pride when confronted and make every conceivable effort to walk or run away from a confrontation or a threat, up to the point where you truly believe your life or a loved one is in danger, in which case you have to make a stand.

I'm curious, why does anyone think you can't carry in a place you rent, even on vacation. Doesn't the statute allow possession (including on one'sn person) in your "residence, place of business and premises" (paraphrasing). If you rent it, doesn't it become your "premises" even if not the primary place you live? If not, what does "premises" mean since the statute already mentions "residence" and "place of business"?