John Willett

Hello again! The conference is coming up this Saturday between 10:00AM and 6:00PM! Online registration won't be closing, you can get signed up on your way to the conference if you want at NJSafeCon.net I hope to see lots of folks from the forums there. Also, change of plans with CLE course. Only Evan Nappen will be teaching. Course price is now $175 for Lawyers, $150 for everyone else. Course is approved for 3 hours of CLE credit. After lunch Evan will be doing a session for us on Self Defense (not CLE accredited). CLE Registration closes on Thursday. Have a great week, hope to see many of you on Saturday the 30th! Say hi if you see me there.

EO 180 resulted in a small change to the NJ State police regulation that had incorrectly captured the definition of justifiable need based on NJ courts. It added "serious threats" to the existing language. Its not what we would all want carry permits to be based on, but it wasn't meaningless. So your reply is to make BS up about me? You may not realize this, but asking you questions, being dissatisfied with the answers, and calling you on your lies doesn't make someone against self defense or "anti carry". Frankly, I see other poorly formed legal challenges and hold my tongue because I believe those folks are operating in good faith with the rest of us who care about 2A. Also I had reservations about the tactic of protesting in front of Sweeney's house, but waited until I had the chance to go there and witness it before commenting, at which point I had changed my mind. I demonstrated in Trenton, were you there? You only expose yourself, as someone with no substance.

Its good to know that Albert can be counted on to rely on personal insults rather than attempt to defend his BS. You know, it doesn't matter what you call me, or how popular or unpopular it is. I will tell you directly when you're wrong. Don't patronize me with this "fighting for your rights" crap. We both know that you are only interested in your case and don't give a whit about anyone else's rights. Whether your case is good or bad for us as a movement, it doesn't matter to you at all. Even all of that wouldn't bother me so much, except for the fact that you wouldn't have spread baseless lies about other members of this community, all because you thought it would net you more donations. I care too much about this community to let you pretend you otherwise. I noted the change on your website, but you have revealed yourself, that nothing has changed.

Pointing out Albert's BS is less sour grapes, more of a public service

Hi folks! Quick update on the conference. We have added Kathy Chatterton to our line-up of speakers. Kathy is the current ANJRPC President and a national champion shooter. Also, I am proud to announce that our Legal Education course has been accredited for a total of 6.5 hours of CLE from the state of New Jersey. That will be 3 hours for NJ Firearms Law and 3.5 hours for Self Defense Law. Two certificates will be issued. The course is taught by legal experts Evan Nappen and Andrew Branca. These are the guys who literally wrote the books on their respective subjects. The course will be on July 29th at Liberty Office Suites an is open to those of us who aren't attorneys. The course is $350 for those seeking CLE credit and $300 for those who aren't. The day runs from 9 to 5 and lunch is included. You can sign up at njsafecon.net/register Finally, we have submitted our questions in to the NJ State Police Firearms Unit. As of now we are expecting them to be joining us. Thanks to all who helped us draft questions!

I might believe this if I had heard you apologized to the people you dragged through the mud or were calling lapdogs. At least you have modified your about page to not attack other groups by name. Still not enough to warrant any trust though.

Not a clean split, as 7th circuit didn't need to deal with a qualifier like "need" or "cause" to get a carry permit. My opinion is that the best case scenario to get heard by SCOTUS is going to be a case where the law is struck down by the lower court. Problem here is now the plaintiffs have to decide on filing for cert. without knowing what the composition of the court they are facing is going to look like. Timing is about as bad as it could be.

The group itself appears to be born out of an effort to get a bunch of people to apply for carry permits and get denied. The purpose of that was to disprove a talking point of the NJ Attorney General's office that most applications are approved. However, that statistic didn't really have any impact of Drake or other carry cases as the courts keep saying that NJ has the power to regulate the way it does. We haven't really gotten a serious look at how narrowly tailored NJ's regulation, in my opinion, because they rely on a passage in Heller that says something to the effect of not invalidating "longstanding" prohibitions. (Edit: For clarity I'm saying the court's havent looked seriously at how narrowly tailored the law is, I think we would all agree that it is certainly not the least restrictive means to promote safety. ) It's purpose seems to be to raise money to fund their own case, which in and of itself is fine with me. However, another ancillary purpose appears to be to cast aspersions on various other groups in the state, and/or their leadership. In fact, while they have announced a partnership with NJ2AS, their about page still trashes them. In my opinion, the reason they are doing this is to increase the attention they get and raise more money. You can see the amount of conversation the allegations (unsubstantiated hearsay) have caused compared to discussion of the case itself. Lots of gun owners here are frustrated and they seek to take advantage. As for the strategy of the case itself, who knows? The last time I remember asking Almeida about it and getting an actual answer he said something like "that is the lawyers job". To my knowledge, there isn't a clear strategy that anyone has published. They promise that their lawyers will hold meetings to relay the strategy. However, to my mind, Nappen is already pursuing a superior case. Evan discusses it on the most recent couple of episodes of Gun for Hire Radio.

So then tell me, how does Albert's case succeed where Drake failed? It won't. The third circuit said that 2A wasn't implicated by NJ's "regulation". SCOTUS passed on it. The best case scenario is Albert gets his permit under the current standard. In fact, I suspect there is a chance that he may benefit from the adjustment to the regulations that Bach apparently was involved in orchestrating. I hope he does, but how is that for irony? Regardless, Nappen's current case is probably better because it likely falls within the holding of Heller and not simply the dicta. This would provide a new test of how far the third circuit is willing to go to ignore Heller and McDonald. I don't care about ego's or feelings. I cite his behavior to provide insight into how he operates. But, to my detriment, I am often compelled to respond to unsubstantiated BS and flawed arguments.

Deerslayer, the point is this. If he is willing to repeatedly attack a veterans service (this isn't a spur of the moment thing, he used the same line of attack several months ago) than its obvious that he doesn't actually value military service. Rather, I suspect, he wants to cloak himself in the service of others in pursuit of his goal. By the way, I don't have a personal beef with anyone on this issue (despite some attempts to make it personal). I do however object to people driving wedges into the cracks of our community for the purpose of raising cash, and will continue to call out behavior that I find despicable.

I said he denigrated (that means insulted) the service of a veteran, not that he had a problem with military in general.

So if members of the party of six can speak for each other, do you agree with Almeida that I am a fraud? Do you think the Marine Corps standards were too low when I served? (By the way, this is from a person who to my knowledge, never served. I am really interested how you guys like your primary spokesperson denigrating the military service of anyone, much less another 2A advocate.) Do you think I am a lapdog or a conspirator member of the "establishment"? What Almeida, and by extension the rest of the Party of six, has accused Scott and Evan of is even more serious. Unethical behavior and scheming that directly contradicts the interest of their clients or employer, not to mention the violation of NJ Gun Owner's trust. Where is the evidence? Admittedly there is none, save for the unsubstantiated hearsay from someone with an interest in taking down those who won't give them money. When Almeida is getting what he wants, he's quiet. When he isn't, there is a conspiracy afoot. By the way, who are you?

Hi again Michael did not tell me anything about lack of representation. In fact, I have the email here. He stated that he was rescinding his case, removing himself from NJ's fight and moving. I wished him well and said that he needed to do what was best for his family. He did mention support vaguely. I assumed financial support. Again, nothing about problems with lawyers. I claimed no knowledge about communication between him and others, only relayed what he had told me and suggested that may be a reason. Hence, the question mark at the end of that sentence. By the way, I don't think I have yet to seek out any member of your party, certainly not in that capacity. Any conversation was initiated by them with me either through posts on my Facebook pages or that hit my feed. As you you know, I don't pester people who aren't responding. Other than yourself, Mark Cheeseman and David Schulze were the only two members I have had conversations with recently as far as I know. In fact my first conversation with David was rather telling. When I deleted his post off the SAFE Conference Facebook page, I messaged him to notify him that we don't condone bashing other 2A groups. He tried to argue that you guys weren't, but we all know how that has turned out, right? As I have always stated, building the community of advocates is my goal and the goal of the conference. If you really think that is valuable, you would find a way to do that with your group. Unfortunately, I am not sure you have the temperament to do so. Anyway, I hope you were able to enjoy watching some of the NRA meeting today, David Clarke was great as usual. I didn't particularly find your tagging me on a Krispy Kreme post nearly as funny as I am sure you did, alas you are now blocked on that platform. Anyone who has met me knows I am a big guy, haha funny funny. When you can engage on something greater than a grade-school level, let me know and I will reconsider.

Planning to go Saturday to visit NJ Concealment Furniture and Black Bag Resources.

Mr. Almeida, Have you actually delivered on anything other than disparaging remarks about others? Are you capable of engaging without insults? Have you ever committed to any effort that wasn't linked to your bank account? You're right, against my better judgement I've tried to work with you. The problem is the moment you disagree with someone, they are suddenly lapdogs, or conspirators against you. By the way, I am glad you finally worked up the courage to direct the insults you shared earlier on Facebook toward me. I'd appreciate it if you could at least spell my name right when you attack me. Many of us are working to grow the community, and you appear to only be interested in breaking it up. Good day (Edit) P.S. What did Scott say when you asked him about this while you were on Gun for Hire together?

I invited Tummeneli to speak at NJ SAFE last year. He agreed, then declined, and told me he was dropping his case and moving. Maybe he told Nappen the same thing... If SAF were interested in pushing this case and Nappen (for any reason) couldn't do it, they could have retained another attorney, its not like they have a lack of talent. I don't believe any of this, and frankly, there is no reason to believe any of it.

Publicly making baseless accusations against people is despicable. The accusations, as I have stated, don't really make any sense. They should either have their "sources" come forward, or let it go. Instead, they have continued to bash every other organization in the state because they aren't giving Almeida money. I think its pretty clear what the motivation is.

Fair enough on the Clinton thing. Your comparison was different than I had interpreted. I still think its not a great one. My point here is that Almeida is trying to raise funds by disparaging the highest profile people he can in the 2A community based on rumor. People, including leading advocates, are allowed to disagree on methods and tactics. They are allowed not to participate in efforts that they don't believe in. It doesn't mean that they are conspiring against the cause. I find this behavior by those leveling these accusations despicable, and I don't know why anyone is tolerating it and operating on the assumption its true

To your first point, there is absolutely no comparison between Christie's lack of enthusiasm for pushing CCW with Clinton's apparent lack of interest in ensuring the safety of an Ambassador and other personnel in Benghazi. There is a clear reason for Christie to not attempt to push CCW through the legislature, the folks who occupy it will never vote for it. That means he would look even more ineffective. (I'm certain he isn't a true believer on the gun issue, but someone has convinced him to act) However, those things he can do, he's done. A bunch of pardons and the recent executive order are evidence of that. Not too mention the previous guidance the AG issued regarding the treatment of out of state CCW holders. To the extent he could act legally with effect, he has done so. Also, Nappen has a case that he is pushing. If Almeida's was so great, why wouldn't he push it. The political reason garbage doesn't make sense, and would be unethical. Do you think Nappen is unethical? I certainly don't. I have never been given a reason that Almeida's case wouldn't turn out the same as Drake. No one has posited any legal argument for how he would win at the third circuit, and we know we don't want SCOTUS to rule right now. In addition there are other cases that I would prefer that the court rule on first, before pushing a case through federal court. Something appears wrong here. I'm not so sure it's Mr. Almeida's account. To be sure one way of there other, we need more information. Unfortunately, unless someone inside comes clean, that may not happen. It's not even his account. It's unnamed sources. Why don't they have the balls to come out themselves instead of playing this gossip game? Bottom line is Almeida has had his hand out demanding money from every organization and person he has interacted with. I would love to see him win, because that could be good for NJ Gun Owners, but his slander and libel against the people who work for the cause day in and day out is unacceptable.

It's complete BS. The allegations don't even make sense. A challenge to NJ's carry law wouldn't have hurt Christie. Recall Sweeney certainly wouldn't hurt Christie. There were no spaces for private meetings at SAFE Conference.

Highly recommend Firearms Support and Storage! Toured their facility and it is top notch. Vault door is like one you would see at a bank.

Sharing some big news this week. We will be joined at the conference by Cam Edwards, of Cam & Co. on NRA News! Cam may be from out of state, but he is connected to NJ through his family. His wife lived in Camden and they still have family here. We are very excited to have him.

I'd like to offer an possible alternative perspective to this discussion. While it might take a significant amount of time for Strikeforce to prove fruitful in a lawsuit, consider how long individual or small groups of cases against municipalities would take with over 400 possible targets. It would seem that taking the time to identify as many who act in bad faith and refuse to correct their procedures and taking action on them at once, or in a couple large cases, is both more efficient and provides gun owners throughout the state with relief more quickly.

Cruz is the "insider" and a "lying scumbag"? Compared to the guy who brags about being a corrupt "businessman" who bought politicians? I came into this primary season waiting to see who I would support. There was a new frontrunner every other month last cycle. I thought Trump would shake things up in a good way. Unfortunately he has only become a complete embarrassment to the Republican and the Conservative movement. Now I don't mind Republicans getting beat up a bit, but I do consider myself part of the Conservative movement. The notion that any conservative would take a second look at Trump without realizing that he is a caricature of a conservative, to me, is blind. It is pretty obvious he hasn't thought deeply about any of the issues he discusses, and his support or opposition may expire with his next tweet. By contrast, Cruz has delivered a consistent message that is reinforced by things he has actually done, whether they were popular or not. Choosing Trump over Cruz would be an awful mistake.

Bob Viden and his shop supported NJ SAFE Conference last year. He didn't have to. He opposes anti gun legislation when it is proposed. I've visited his shop several times and met him briefly. While we may have some difference of opinion regarding how to fight against NJ Gun laws, he is certainly not against lawful firearms ownership. He is not the enemy. The difference between us and the antis is that we are supposed to be the rational tempered ones. Facts, logic, that whole bit. By the way, I just told Anthony he had been thrown out of Bob's. He was surprised... cause he's never even been there.