1 hour ago, pjd832 said:

That is correct, I asked him why bother.. he said 2 parts 1 he wanted to see them deny him, 2 to have a year 1 nj permit as a collectable….. not sure why some people are so pissed off  seems as though the more people applying/issued  the better

I know of several people that are able to carry nationwide due to employment that have applied… in case people didn’t know…not every NJ cop knows the minutia of the carry rules under the federal statues, and more than a few have had issues when carrying in nj and contact with nj leo..

I’ve read once that NY cops would sometimes take the Palisades Parkway as a shortcut, to bypass the Bronx traffic. NJSP would hassle them for carrying loaded firearms without a NJ permit.

17 minutes ago, galapoola said:

I’ve read once that NY cops would sometimes take the Palisades Parkway as a shortcut, to bypass the Bronx traffic. NJSP would hassle them for carrying loaded firearms without a NJ permit.

That’s before HR218, right? What happened to the blue wall and “professional courtesy?”

50 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

That’s before HR218, right? What happened to the blue wall and “professional courtesy?”

Not sure but that parkway has a ridiculous 55mph limit so I’m sure the NY cops being cops cruised along at 80-90. That may have been the dynamic that drew the NJSP in

55 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

That’s before HR218, right? What happened to the blue wall and “professional courtesy?”

Born/raised in SJ, I worked for Metro-Dade PD in the 1990s (Miami) and I had a letter from the NJSP stating I was not permitted to carry in NJ when I was home unless I was on official PD business.  The same went for Philly/PA cops who would get done work late and shoot down to the Jersey Shore speeding in uniform on the ACE and the troops would ask them if they could take a look in trunk - of course they said NO.

1 hour ago, RadioGunner said:

That’s before HR218, right? What happened to the blue wall and “professional courtesy?”

New Jersey as most of on here should be well aware believes that they are a country in and of itself, and can make up their own rules and disregard federal law as well as constitutional precident…. I have personally been hassled in New Jersey or more than once north central and south by those thinking that regardless of 218 one must have a permission slip from New Jersey.

3 minutes ago, pjd832 said:

New Jersey as most of on here should be well aware believes that they are a country in and of itself, and can make up their own rules and disregard federal law as well as constitutional precident…. I have personally been hassled in New Jersey or more than once north central and south by those thinking that regardless of 218 one must have a permission slip from New Jersey.

It is not uncommon by any means that cops don't know the law or care about the law.

On that same point, for those of us that don't have blue wall insurance, its extra important that we as citizens that carry, or will carry soon, take extra care to follow the law whether we agree with it or not. We need to show that we are a benefit and not a detriment. That we are NOT the problem. 

4 minutes ago, g17owner said:

It is not uncommon by any means that cops don't know the law or care about the law.

On that same point, for those of us that don't have blue wall insurance, its extra important that we as citizens that carry, or will carry soon, take extra care to follow the law whether we agree with it or not. We need to show that we are a benefit and not a detriment. That we are NOT the problem. 

I completely agree, and I may be in the minority, but I think that every person regardless of their employment has the right to carry without all the stupid stuff that you have to jump through, all the arbitrary requirements etc All of it is nonsensical BS ….. as strong as my belief and respect of the constitution..my opinion may stray from the original wording in that my only requirement would be …as long as you’re not a person prohibited from owning a firearm, you should be able to carry one concealed or open. If that’s your choice it shouldn’t be a requirement to qualify out to X number of yards etc. not everyone I work with shares that opinion however 

Just now, pjd832 said:

I completely agree, and I may be in the minority, but I think that every person regardless of their employment has the right to carry without all the stupid loot that you have to jump through etc. all the arbitrary requirements. All of it is nonsensical BS as long as you’re not a person prohibited from owning a firearm, you should be able to carry one concealed or open. If that’s your choice it shouldn’t be a requirement to qualify out to X number of yards etc. not everyone I work with shares that opinion however 

1000%

1 hour ago, g17owner said:

It is not uncommon by any means that cops don't know the law or care about the law.

On that same point, for those of us that don't have blue wall insurance, its extra important that we as citizens that carry, or will carry soon, take extra care to follow the law whether we agree with it or not. We need to show that we are a benefit and not a detriment. That we are NOT the problem. 

Amen to that, brother!!  Let’s all set the example for responsible ownership and lawful carry.  

On 9/30/2022 at 5:52 PM, Lostboy said:

I saw these this morning. So they really have no obligation of time?

Yes, they should be following the directive 6-19.

On 9/30/2022 at 6:38 PM, JackDaWack said:

They won't. The judiciary is going to press the legislator to cut them from the process. 

There will be no stream lining anything, our courts barely operate as is with respect to their normal volume of cases/hearings. 

 

Judges’ chambers are busy and the staff is typically over worked. During some trials the staff will often bring papers from other matters and cases for the judge to read and sign.

Now that there is virtually no basis for a judge to deny a permit approved by a local police chief there is really no reason to keep the judges in the loop. 

12 hours ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

Judges’ chambers are busy and the staff is typically over worked. During some trials the staff will often bring papers from other matters and cases for the judge to read and sign.

Now that there is virtually no basis for a judge to deny a permit approved by a local police chief there is really no reason to keep the judges in the loop. 

They all seem to be aware that NJ has no immediate interest to help the courts on civil and criminal matters, to think they would get additional support for permits is... unimaginable. 

It would make sense for them to instead claim there is no point for them to oversee this process, it's further delaying other work they need to complete. 

I know a few people right now dealing with civil matters and it's been a rediculous wait time to get a hearing. 

***DELETED***

1 hour ago, JackDaWack said:

They all seem to be aware that NJ has no immediate interest to help the courts on civil and criminal matters, to think they would get additional support for permits is... unimaginable. 

It would make sense for them to instead claim there is no point for them to oversee this process, it's further delaying other work they need to complete. 

I know a few people right now dealing with civil matters and it's been a rediculous wait time to get a hearing. 

I'm sure that the courts were involved in the process as a double check to make sure some rogue police chief didn't start to issue permits.

22 minutes ago, samiam said:

If that is all correct (and I believe it is), wouldn't you agree that there is no need for the courts to do anything but rubber-stamp approve applications, without further review, or even more ridiculous, holding hearings? How long can it take to scribble a signature on each of a stack of applications? I don't think legal CYA is a plausible excuse for further review by the courts, either. The very factors you cite for removing judges from the process because they no longer play a valid or necessary role would seem to my IANAL mind to make for a pretty bullet-proof defense, should some claim be made later that a judge should be held liable for damage caused by someone holding a permit he or she approved. If that were a valid reason, I think there would be an obvious corollary legal risk for not expeditiously approving. I don't see how any of this provides any valid excuse for the courts not approving applications quickly, or any escape from culpability for their failure to do so.

As long as they are part of the statutory process, I would believe they feel a duty to review the applications regardless of the redundancy. 

I also think the courts don't see any urgency here, regardless of Bruen. They have back logs of criminal cases etc that would argue a violation of a "speedy trial" etc. 

When your status qou is backlog after backlog on matters you(judge) find important, the trivial signing of permits seems far less important. They are probably extremely annoyed that this is pulling them away from "real" work. 

So, I do beleive they will be pushing, maybe not all, but i would bet a significant amount would want the process eliminated when it is just a rubber stamp. The judges wanting to stick us with restrictions will continue to advocate for that, as some high order over us peasants.  

Just now, SJ Guns said:

I'm sure that the courts were involved in the process as a double check to make sure some rogue police chief didn't start to issue permits.

The judges were involved on the basis of justifiable need. The system was designed in a way that court orders were created to make sure people could only get a permit if a judge beleived they needed it under some asinine conditions. 

They didn't want the legislature to create blanket conditions for approval and condition. Perhaps some loopholes could be created. Well, they made sure that a Judge would be reviewing every little detail. 

23 hours ago, galapoola said:

I’ve read once that NY cops would sometimes take the Palisades Parkway as a shortcut, to bypass the Bronx traffic. NJSP would hassle them for carrying loaded firearms without a NJ permit.

I've heard that from a retired NY LEO as well. NYPD guys that moved upstate would be going down the Palisades late at night to a Manhattan shift and get pulled over with NY plates and then hassled. I thought they could 50 state carry but not (apparently) in NJ.

All the nonesense was set up to be as complex and arduous as possible to deter as many people as possible from even trying… then those that pushed forward there were plenty of means to deny then creating/ spreading the fear of repercussion of denial in the hopes it would end up as it did no one applying except for the occasional dreamer they would have to waste their time going through the process of denying formally. 
 

It all needs to just stop and the process should be similiar to that of numerous other states that are doing it the only “reasonably restricted” way above the constitution…single page application a criminal/mental/domestic check performed by that agency issue if not a prohibited person …period, paragraph!

 

Like pa for example ..my wife has her de cc license … we went to a pa sheriffs office single page app, told her to have a seat the deputy ran her, took her pic made the card out the door … all told 15 min process once started … there were half a dozen people there each the same… I think it was $20………

 

Not sent pony express to various inefficient agencies around the state…. That is all part of the old plan…. It’s all online the camels nose is under the tent now…. Cut the crap 

Those of you with court orders attached to the permit - how do you plan to carry it? Do you think scanned in your phone and a copy in your glove box is sufficient? 

21 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

Those of you with court orders attached to the permit - how do you plan to carry it? Do you think scanned in your phone and a copy in your glove box is sufficient? 

Yes, do that, and shrink down a copy to fit in your wallet.  They never said how big the copy had to be.  

21 minutes ago, LeaveNJ said:

Yes, do that, and shrink down a copy to fit in your wallet.  They never said how big the copy had to be.  

Good point. I’ll probably make a half size copy, laminate and keep in my handbag. 

Have you guys confirmed that a copy is sufficient? Meaning it doesn't have to be the original? Also, each judge could technically say something different because it is their order.

10 minutes ago, nooch450 said:

Have you guys confirmed that a copy is sufficient? Meaning it doesn't have to be the original? Also, each judge could technically say something different because it is their order.

I have to call lawshield about that but that's my plan. I have other court orders pertaining to various things and using copies of them was sufficient when I had to present them to authorities (including NJSP). 

Here is my plan though - if they insist on a certified/filed copy, I will go to the court and get a few copies from them with their stamp and seal. I'll keep one in my glovebox because I'm almost always going somewhere by car and my car is always within walking distance. I may fold up one and keep it in a plastic document pouch, in the off chance that law enforcement asks for it, or in the hopefully never occasion that I have to use my gun and I have to explain myself...

My court order said I have to carry my permit. It said nothing about the court order being carried.

So my money order was finally cashed. I checked with the court 
and said it was something like GP-OCN-###-22 . 
Does that mean it was approved and waiting for it to be mailed back or is that just their 
docket they are using to keep track of permits. 

4 minutes ago, IhateNJ said:

So my money order was finally cashed. I checked with the court 
and said it was something like GP-OCN-###-22 . 
Does that mean it was approved and waiting for it to be mailed back or is that just their 
docket they are using to keep track of permits. 

That is the docket number assigned when the court receives your permit. The number where you put ### shows how many permits applications they received before yours this year.

1 hour ago, IhateNJ said:

So my money order was finally cashed. I checked with the court 
and said it was something like GP-OCN-###-22 . 
Does that mean it was approved and waiting for it to be mailed back or is that just their 
docket they are using to keep track of permits. 

Money order cashed means it's somewhere along in the process at the court. 

9 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

My court order said I have to carry my permit. It said nothing about the court order being carried.

That’s what mine said as well

Checked this morning My Money Order has been cashed (My last check was Thursday)  but my GP # is 598 so I probably still have a long wait don't know what # their at