Luso

I hear you. All I am saying is my contention is waiting on esteemed lawyers, that godsend politician, that aligning of the moon and stars...it's a waste of time, in my opinion. It's not necessary to wait for someone else to do something. And you can have the best lawyers in the world - when you have corrupt, statist judges on the bench, the flowery rhetoric and lofty ideals of a phenomenal lawyer will not matter whatsoever. When the legislature is this stacked against you and they have no incentive to support any legislation we would desire regarding CCW, no amount of money, lawyers, or politicking will win the day. Yesterday's election results should be all the proof you need that going the route of democracy in this state is an utter waste of your time, and I don't know about anyone else, but I don't feel like waiting around every election on the off chance enough sympathetic politicians get elected each cycle to see if I should start demanding a right. We are sitting here feeling sorry for ourselves, because we know IF we ask for permission to do something, THEN they are going to say no. All I am saying initially, is to advance the conversation past this point of just "knowing they will say no". What I am saying is, make them say no definitively. Right now, we aren't even doing this. If you get them to say no to 10,000 citizens, you can start using that to your advantage. You can cite it in future court cases. You can get civil rights groups to make noise. You can paint the politicians as anti-(fill in the blank, gays, blacks, women, hispanics, etc). You can begin pressuring, You can't demand something if you aren't being denied it. Think about that. In the most literal sense, on the books, we have the ability to apply for ccw, and NO ONE has been DENIED that right (except pantano pretty much). Just because we know we will be denied, doesn't mean that we were. That is an important distinction in this conversation. I guarantee you if some civil rights group starts clamoring about racism after all these denials, and you show people getting murdered on the streets because they were defenseless and no cops were in sight, you start to make them DEFEND their position. Right now, they are defending nothing, and they are happy with that. This mall shooting at the GSP is a great opportunity to force these politicians to say, essentially "sorry, I would rather you die individually, than endanger the greater collective". That is the message that we need to draw out of them, you can put words in their mouth. Because at the end of the day, these cowards run to Trenton behind metal detectors and 50 armed state troopers, and tell us in Paterson that we better not have any guns on us. How can you not see the incredible opportunity here? This is an opportunity to put words in these politicians mouths, and the beauty is those words are whatever you want them to be: "If gun free zones are good enough for my kids, than disarm all the state troopers in the state house protecting you IMMEDAITELY" "Why do politicians get CCW permits, but I can not get one to protect my children. Are you insinuating your life is more valuable than my child's? ANSWER THE QUESTION - (weinberg, cunningham, sweeney, mainor, etc)" "why is the state systematically discriminating against (insert minority) in paterson camden and newark, where violent crime is higher than anywhere else?? Do you WANT to have as many (insert minority group) as possible dead? Why do you hate (insert minority group)???!! are you racist? If you don't hate (insert minority group) stop letting them get killed on the streets" "Women are 1000xs more likely to be raped by a man, than a man by a woman. Why do you insist on keeping women disarmed. You must be pro-rape? Why are you anti-choice on women defending themselves! Her body, her choice!" Do you see this? It's the same nonsense they use. You throw it at them enough and it changes the conversation. It's easy for a NJ politician to deflect guns, because no one gives a crap about guns in this state. But they SURE AS HELL give a crap about (insert whatever disadvantaged, class warfare-driven group you choose) Get them on the record, let them say no, then call them racists until we are blue in the face. Because deep down, they are elitist scum. They don't care if you die. They don't care if your kid gets shot. They don't think your wife is worthy of being protected. So long as THEY have guns protecting THEM and their friends wherever they go, to hell with YOU. Now let's get them to respond to that

I think you are misunderstanding me. I was referring to Newtonian's theoretical scenario where if you apply and are rejected, that you would not be able to reapply in the future if they did pass CCW later on. They can deny your right (unjustly) but what I am saying is they can not deny you the opportunity to apply. Just like you can't be denied the opportunity to reapply after a failed driver's test

It would strike me as incredibly illegal to deny someone a privilege because they applied for it and failed for completely non criminal reasons. That's like saying if you fail a driving test by a few points on the written exam that you could never apply to drive again. This is never going to happen. It's just another silly fear point. Remember, right now you are preserving the denial of your right by doing nothing. You're not protecting or defending anything, except your compliance in continuing down this path of absolutely no ccw in nj

Not afraid, but my thinking requires large numbers of people willing to do it in order to skew the percentage quickly, (preferably within the same calendar year). While not necessary, the contact info of members and organization of the nj 2nd amendment organizations would be helpful in coordinating 2 people doing it on their own doesn't change the statistics . Needs to be at least 1000 rejections to make a huge dent, and 50,000 rejections to completely drown their percentage. Then we are in business I am the first willing to start checking that box if people are willing to do it in unison. Have absolutely nothing to lose

but here is where my point controls for this...who cares how they ignore the constitution or use precedent to justify their actions? I'm not suggesting conquering our political foes with intellectually superior arguments. I am not suggesting crafting legislation. we will never win that fight. I am suggesting you start calling them racist, anti black elitists. Do you get the difference? They play dirty, so can you. Stop thinking so narrow-mindedly. Because yes, we will lose in the arena of ideas (in this state at least, with our legislature). Start thinking creatively. They need to have their position formalized (which now it is not) and then you call them racist, sexist, anti gay for denying the entire population of black/female/gay applicants their right. They want black people to DIE. Get it now? It's not about guns. It's about agitation, which is what they thrive on when they want to bolster their political arguments. (think obamacare - "war on women", "class warfare" "hating the poor") We all know obamacare for example will never help the poor (in fact, most people don't realize that below the poverty level you don't even qualify for the obamacare exchanges, you are left on medicaid) but that doesn't matter, because they frame it as "if you are against this, you hate poor people and you want them to die". Who can win against that accusation? It's emotion, and it trumps all legal arguments, court precedents, and common sense. They use the same logic with everything they support. If you don't like something the president says, you hate black people. And it works. Use their tactics against them. It's very simple. everyone should have that application in their hands filled out, and await to send it in en masse on the same exact day. Don't wait for another tragedy. this should be done WELL BEFORE pantano is heard

yes, it shouldn't be something we "wait" to do, or react to after a disaster. That's part of our problem...we wait for disasters, a bunch of anti bills get written, and then suddenly we activate into full on defense mode. Let's get on offense. Let THEM play defense. Every moment they are playing defense, they aren't writing more ridiculous bills. let's put them on their heels. These state orgs should have every one of their members collect an application, and then file them simultaneously across the state. you WANT the state to deny every single one of them. It bolsters our argument. Either way, we are going to win the narrative. But first, you have to TRY. HELL, some people might outright get a permit and show it isn't a big deal. We have Pantano about to happen, what better climate to do this in and show there is a huge demand for this civil right?

I agree the courts are structured that way now on precedent. but if you get 50,000 black citizens in Newark, Camden, and Paterson rejected on their application, and you throw a civil rights organization into the mix making very public that there is racial discrimination going on, the game changes, and so does the conversation. No one gave 2 craps about the Washington Redskins name for decades, multiple presidencies have come and gone and no one said a word. Suddenly, a few civil rights groups are making a big deal about it, and its FORCING a PRESIDENT to bring his commentary into the situation. Visibility has an effect. It drives conversations. This issue has no visibility. It has none because no one cares, the state doesn't want it to be noticed, and no citizens ASK for the "privilege". It's not an immediate solution, but it all starts with making them take a POSITION. Right now the state's position is "YES, we have concealed carry privileges in NJ, and we grant it to virtually EVERYONE who asks for it. We don't have an issue". That needs to change to: "we deny 99% of our applicants because they do not have a need to have a gun" NOW, you can build a narrative about that need. Who needs it and who doesn't? Why does the state get to decide who has the "need"? Why do you have to be connected to politicans to "need" protection?? Are normal citizens not worthy of the same protection? Black people don't "NEED" guns, while they are being slaughtered in the highest numbers statistically? This is how you drive the wedge, how you advance the ball. it is a first step in changing the narrative. The state has to take a position beyond the status quo, which is granting virtually 100% of the applications

The problem is everyone sits around like a bunch of college professors debating ethics and scared about checking a stupid box. What the hell are you "protecting" by not checking that stupid box?????? A lifetime of never having concealed carry anyway?? WHO GIVES A **** Do you want to carry one day? Then start having 50,000 + people in this state NEEDING to check that DAMN BOX. Otherwise you will have a lifetime of never carrying, but you won't have to check the precious box. It's inane to have this conversation and people bring up having to explain you were rejected. YOU ARE GETTING REJECTED ANYWAY BY DEFAULT BY DOING NOTHING..WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

Right, but they rest on the fact, as someone mentioned above, that the acceptance rate is through the roof (high 90th percentile) They CITE THIS in the courts as a defense. If 1000 people are being granted permits annually, and you get even 10,000 people to apply and be rejected, they will go from 95% to about 7% in one year! It's all about taking away their argument. It is a lot easier to make a case, particularly in the upcoming supreme court case with Pantano, that the state is systematically denying you your rights when you show that that is precisely what is happening! right now, it just looks like everyone that wants a permit is getting a permit, and no one else is asking for it. This logic is insane. It's like saying black people don't have the right to vote, but no black people ever try to vote, therefore there is no need to change the law. We control the narrative. Make the state DEFEND Their position. Right now, they have nothing to defend. They are "doing their part" by granting virtually 100% of the applications they receive. You can make their life hell in court if we could somehow get that number to less than 1% of applicants getting a permit. Now you can make arguments that the state is systematically choosing who gets to live and who gets to die. Who is worthy of protecting their lives and family (those connected to politicians, and brinks employees ON DUTY ONLY). You can make it into a race thing. Maybe you get 1000 black people from paterson newark and camden with clean records to apply and get every one of them denied. Headline: NJ Courts Discriminate Against Black Citizens; Denied Right to Self Protection" We control the narrative. We are LETTING them do this to us. Flood the damn system every day with rejected applications. Make the police officers processing the applications cry uncle. Inundate the system completely. Then let the state defend to the public why they are making a civil rights issue out of concealed carry. About 40 other states have figured this out with no problems. let's stop reacting to every shooting and go to Trenton to defend why they shouldn't take MORE rights away from us. Knock these scumbags on their ass and play some OFFENSE. Take the fight to THEM

this is genius. the entire system should be flooded with people who work at the gsp applying for these permits, and let the state publicly explain that they would rather you be slaughtered than lawfully carry a firearm. I hate that everyone wants to sit back because they don't want to check some box. they are denying you your rights regardless, WHO CARES? all 1 million gun owners should be applying for the permit and drive the acceptance rate for it into the crapper, and make THE STATE DEFEND why they would rather you be DEAD than carry a gun

So how do we know what the next step is? What is the process for the state to pick up and hear this case? Is there a certain date by which they have to address the case? Is there some bureaucrat that decides arbitrarily when it is heard? Basically, when am I supposed to get excited about this case getting heard in a court room?

Confirmed he has shotguns. It's on the firearm rental page

I'm pretty sure gun for hire has shotguns in woodland park. And you can shoot them so long as you are shooting slugs and maybe buck as well. Ask someone through the site Www.gunforhire.com I'm confident he has some shotguns on that rental wall

absolutely nothing will happen. gone to tons of division games at the meadowlands with eagles fans chirping like they were at lincoln financial and nothing happens. there is too much security and remember the stadium is divided into quadrants now. So long as you don't go looking for trouble you will be fine, especially when people see you are seated with a giants fan. jets fans are slightly worse but it's also a younger generation of fans People forget that for the most part those who can afford or have access to giants tickets are middle-upper class. Also the reason why I find attending NFL games so boring. Going to a Rutgers game is 10xs more fun for the atmosphere even though the game itself is much worse

There is no downside. 1000 black citizens calling a white state rep (weinberg for example) a racist for denying their "civil rights". The news cameras have no choice but to follow, by their own faulty, social-justice-loving logic. That is the beauty of it, when the proper channels fail, you use their own tactics against them, and because they subscribe to that philosophy, they have to listen. Right now the state is in a great position to say "hey, nobody is asking for permits and getting denied, so we see no reason to change the system". The first step is to take that away form them, MAKE THEM SAY NO. put it on the record, put it in the courts - make the state take the position of saying "you 5000 people's lives are not worth protecting, but these 1000 brink's employees can protect the "rich's" money"..you can even make it class warfare on top of racial warfare. 5000 people ask for carry permits and get rejected, and the game starts to change. then you go after the social angles like race, but start with square one.

The only effect is you may have to divulge on other applications in the future or in other states that you were once rejected, but once you explain it was due to "lack of justifiable need" it shouldn't realistically pose a problem

It's imperative. you need to get a slew of rejections. It empowers the judicial case and eliminates their defense From there, you can then play off the other "social justice" angles. But more truthfully, all tactical and political angles aside, this is about one human being's life being valued above another. Pure and simple. The masses are free to be slaughtered, and the select elite few can be protected.

Well it is time to do it. There is absolutely no upside to sitting on the sideline and allowing it to stay the way it is. If the state is going to defend its stance on justifiable need, we can't sit by while a 99.9% acceptance rate continues. We need to make it clear that nj is an aristocracy and that non connected citizens do not have the right to defend themselves. People need to think radically: are we going to change this at the ballot box? Good luck with that with Newark, Camden, and Paterson driving our elections. Are you going to do it in the courts? It's possible, but still unlikely. Hell, when they don't have the votes they just stop midway through roll call and move to another committee. That's how brazen they are, and that's how lowly they think of us and our pleas. We have to think more like statists, community organizers, and agitators. We can't talk substance -ie debate the constitutionality of things- it's a losing argument that falls on deaf ears (have fun trying a logical discussion with Weinberg, for those who haven't tried it. It's the biggest test of patience ever experienced, and remarkable that these are the brains that have legislative power over us) Instead, we first get thousands of people rejected. Manufacture outrage. Now you can attack the classism of justifiable need. No longer is there a 99% acceptance rate. Now the state has to accept and defend judges that are quite literally saying that your life (the rejected applicant) is less valuable than his life (a celebrity, a brink's employee). That is the real story. Get thousands of black applicants from Camden rejected. New there is a protest about how there is a virtual holocaust going on in Camden with violent crime, and our RACIST judges are perfectly ok with letting BLACK people continue to get slaughtered, because THEY decided their lives weren't valuable enough to protect with a gun. See the difference here?? No debates, no intellectual discussions, no ironic revolutionary war outfits --- when the enemy can not be persuaded with logic, your only resort is to use their tactics against them. We've tried lobbying our represtantitves. They don't care, because they know your vote can't hurt them. They can't be persuaded. The courts are corrupt. Instead, lets make them answer for being racist, sexist, anti-gay people who want to protect celebrities and security guards who protect the celebrity's money, but don't think the black citizen in Newark is worth saving. Get news coverage for a rally of 5000 black citizens in Camden calling these politicians out BY NAME at a protest for being racist for not giving them carry rights, and I guarantee the narrative changes Stop playing the game their way! There is a reason why they want us to, because its a losing battle for us .

Tha This is a good point. But even more so, we need to get a few thousand people rejected for carry permits, so the ratio of acceptance to rejection becomes completely lopsided. Right now the acceptance rate is through the roof and the statists love to quote that

Anyone know about my question? When is this case slated to be heard?

When do we know that the proceedings for this case may actually begin? Is there an understanding of this yet?

We need a ton of people willing to get rejected on ccw applications to apply before these cases get heard, so that the state can not fall on their "statistics" on "overwhelming approval rates". It needs to be clear they are violating tons of applicant's rights

This is a pretty silly 5 page debate, this is pretty simple Here is the real issue: is this a prudent display for a public servant like a police chief? Maybe not, and an argument can be made for that But that's not the point. Consider this - what if whenever a NJ politician looked for a police officer to stand behind him for a gun control press conference, they were met with a clone of this guy? What if every time they looked for a PD to endorse an insane gun control bill for public clout, they were met with this guy? What if when police were consulted to corroborate that gun control bills will help crime, they were met with this guy? Right now, the police HELP push bills through across blue states in the northeast. All the smiling and handshaking in the world is great and may make you feel fuzzy inside, but whether or not you think what he does is prudent - and there is a debate to be had on that - it's undeniable that if more had his attitude, the legislators wouldn't have the teeth to push their garbage down our throats. What if all constituents were foaming at the mouth like this when legislators try to conjure up their bs laws? We would all be better off. They don't care about you, and playing nice and complying is a great road to serfdom. In sum, if I was that guy, would I do what he did? Probably Not. But if everyone's veins were popping like his and put a little fear of God in our legislators, we might be better off. I am sick of seeing cops in uniform standing behind legislators like pawns to justify gun control bills, or any bills for that matter

Can tickets be purchased at the door?

Thank you. I guess we are limited to spray for protection which isn't too encouraging