Mr.Stu

As has been stated, the reason for the denial is important. I was denied in 2018, purely on the grounds of lack of justifiable need. My criminal and mental health records were fine. My references said I was fine. The judge mentioned the TRO my ex-wife arranged for me during our divorce, which was dismissed a week after it was issued, and he said that was not a concern. He only denied me for lack of JN. Since then I have been approved for an FID change of address, multiple handgun purchase permits, and OGAM exemption and all the NICS checks that go along with executing those handgun permits, as well a several long guns. Lack of JN is not an offense. Requiring JN was actually an offense. Declaring my denial has never caused any issues, including renewing my UT permit and getting a change of address on my NH one. Similarly, it wasn't an issue getting my PA LTCF. Stop letting NJ get into your head and making you assume the worst. Stockholm is a long, long way from here.

NJSP Washington Station has received my fingerptints and mental health stuff - next step is to send my app to the FIU for whatever they want to do with it. I'm not sure what they will be doing.

The prosecutor part is at the discretion of the court and those times run concurrently.

I'll take it - PM inbound

How much to mail it to 08826?

Where are you? Are you willing to mail it?

If the instructor didn't give you any time to reload off the clock, he's not being reasonable. I'm assuming he was aware that you were running a 5-shot revolver? I would suggest not giving him any more money - there are lots of other options out there.

He's right (for the wrong reason), but so did everybody else presuming you were all doing the class in preparation for getting your permit to carry a handgun. Your FID does nothing for you with regard to a handgun, except allow you to buy ammo for it. You need a PCH to carry a handgun, nothing less. The fire department is not an exempt location so travelling there with a handgun would have been a felony if you were caught. If the instructor can't get that well established bit of the law right, how much do you trust him on use of force laws?

Well, that fits with FL finding a hunting license to be acceptable proof of training - you don't have to hit the target to get that either.

A hit on the edge of the target at 25 yards is a hit inside the edge at all distances shorter than 25 yards. A hit on the edge of the target at 7 yards is a hit on a bystander at least 2 people's widths to the side of the target at 25 yards. Who would find that acceptable?

Was it 1 guy watching 7 shooters?

Have you ever shot one? They are a little handful of hate, especially with magnum loads. You will not enjoy practicing with it. I strongly suggest trying before buying.

Maybe I'm pre-judging, but I would be very reluctant to trust my life to a product from Keltec. They come up with some novel stuff, but the execution has been shown to be lacking too many times.

I don't have any specific citations to hand, but it is common knowledge that civil liability cases have been brought against the defender in a self defense shooting. There have even been cases brought by the bad guy's family against the person that defended themselves from said bad guy and killed him - even after they were found not guilty from a criminal perspective. It's a nutty world and in my personal view it is not very defensible to say "Oh yeah, I just figured I'd lob a couple of rounds his way in case I got lucky and hit him. Nah, it don't usually make hits that far away so I only practice at 7 yards." I'd rather not contribute to the nuttiness.

The Admin code says this: There are 3 options for (b) of which you need to satisfy 1. Only option 3 has anything to do with use of force training. Shooting a qualification satisfies option 2 so you don't need to prove anything to do with use of force. Of course it is a very good idea to make sure you know the law regarding use of force, but it is not a required part of the application.

For roof panels, I went with Green Power Energy in Annandale. They did a good job with plenty of communication in the design phase and the guys that did the install were professional too. I recommended them to my best friend and he is happy with their work too. If you'd like them to come out and give you an estimate PM me and I'll send them a referral.

It's not RPO any more either. FOP won a Court case recently that struck that down.

The poi is not going to change significantly enough to matter for the qualification. They will not be looking for you to shoot his eye out and count it as a miss if the bullet hole is not touching the pupil. You're overthinking this.

I can see why you see humor in it, but the reason I chose HQC1 is for my own liability protection. If someone I sign off for is involved in an incident and manages to hit something or someone they were not supposed to I anticipate an inquiry from the police about how/why I signed off. I feel that if I can point to the same CoF that NJSP use I will be better off than using a CoF I made up on my own. Also, it is possible to pass HQC1 without any hits at 25 yards and I find it hard to believe that anybody is that poor a shooter.

They would have to be applying via the same NJSP barracks for it to cause any major confusion, I think. Still not guaranteed unique, but better odds, at least.

I am running a session this coming Thursday morning. If anyone would like to get their qualifications, please email me at [email protected]

I am running a session this coming Thursday morning. If anyone would like to get their qualifications, please email me at [email protected]

It's all about personal responsibility and accountability. Should the government be allowed to restrict a basic human right to only those people who can pass an arbitrary test? No! In fact HELL NO! Should anyone with any sense hold themselves to the highest standard they can achieve when contemplating carrying a tool capable of delivering death? I say yes. Should anyone who neglects to build the skills they need to safely deploy a handgun and harms anyone else through their ineptitude, be held responsible for their actions? Absolutely yes. It is down to the individual to decide how much risk they want to accept and what they are willing to do to mitigate that risk. If it is proven that someone recklessly deployed a firearm (because they took no steps to become proficient) and harm an innocent they should be held accountable. With rights come responsibilities. Those of us that are advocating for people to subject themselves to a proficiency test are doing so to encourage people to know what they are capable of. Should it be government mandated? No. but if you don't test yourself you have no idea the level of risk you are exposing yourself to. That risk can utterly destroy your way of life.

Exactly. If we weren't getting handgun carry permits, I would say the most compact option for a truck gun would be a Mossberg 590M with a folding stock and a loaded mag nearby.

You need to get out and meet more people