3 minutes ago, RadioGunner said:

I wish Sussex would do that. I am past 60 days and no permit in sight. Just give it to me already 

But the court has 30 days.

1 minute ago, marlintag said:

But the court has 30 days.

And what if they go beyond? There is no accountability, no consequences, no automatic issuance. So the 30 day court thing is just smoke and mirrors as far as I'm concerned!

4 minutes ago, nooch450 said:

How can you get the permit without the judges signature? I do not believe there is any automatic approval in the court system. If they are refusing to review we are simply on hold.

I don't think anyone has crossed that bridge yet.   N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c says the permit is automatically approved if the PD takes no action in 60 days, but doesn't address what happens next or what time limit may apply to the court.   

Let's also pretend for a second your PD goes over 60 days. What do you do? How do you present and prove to the court that your application is automatically approved because it's been 60 days?

The SCOTUS messed this up, they should have ruled that permits were unconstitutional. Can I see you permit to speak?

Just now, nooch450 said:

Can I see you permit to speak?

It's in my wife's purse.

3 minutes ago, nooch450 said:

Let's also pretend for a second your PD goes over 60 days. What do you do? How do you present and prove to the court that your application is automatically approved because it's been 60 days?

The SCOTUS messed this up, they should have ruled that permits were unconstitutional. Can I see you permit to speak?

Parade permits and permits to assemble are constitutional if routine and administrative. 

23 minutes ago, marlintag said:

But the court has 30 days.

I’ve read  2C:58-4 and I do not see where it says the court has 30 days. I see the police department has 60. Could someone point out anywhere is says the court has 30 days? 

1 minute ago, Bushmaster1313 said:

Parade permits and permits to assemble are constitutional if routine and administrative. 

NJ, CA, NY, MD not issuing carry permits was ruled "constitutional" until SCOTUS said it wasn't!

Ask yourself this... Do you think the founders of our country would have thought that obtaining permits to speak or obtaining permits to buy and carry arms would have been okay? Absolutely not!

The constitution doesn't say you have freedom of speech or the right to keep and bear arms AFTER the government gives you permission. The constitution literally puts limits on the government from doing this very thing!

BTW this is a conceptual annalists, under our current overreaching government you are correct....

Just now, SJgunguy9899 said:

I’ve read  2C:58-4 and I do not see where it says the court has 30 days. I see the police department has 60. Could someone point out anywhere is says the court has 30 days? 

It is in Directive #06-19 issued by the administrative director if the courts at the direction of the NJ Supreme Court. See attached.

NJ court rules.pdf

2 minutes ago, SJgunguy9899 said:

I’ve read  2C:58-4 and I do not see where it says the court has 30 days. I see the police department has 60. Could someone point out anywhere is says the court has 30 days? 

It's in a directive

https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190521f.pdf

I’m waiting five weeks for an electrical permit that is mandated by NJ law to be issued within three weeks. What do I do? Complain to the mayor? He is the idiot who won’t allocate the funds to the building department so they could do their jobs on time. He’s not going to do anything.

Our government regulates itself, and poorly.

The 30 day limit on the court directive #06-19 is useless in practice.

It would be like passing a law against speeding but there being no fines or consequences attached when people are caught doing it.

Basically, why should a judge who is reluctant to review permits in the first place care about meeting a 30 day deadline when not meeting the deadline has no effect on them or the process?

8 minutes ago, NorthernYankee said:

It's in a directive

https://www.njcourts.gov/notices/2019/n190521f.pdf

Thanks, I read it over and I’m not convinced.. it states that judges must review carry permits and appeals at least once every 30 days and should not exceed that 30 day timeframe without good cause. 
 

now I’m not a lawyer, I’m just your average everyday guy but.. my understanding of that is they have to review at least once every 30 days, doesn’t say they have to approve or deny. Also doesn’t say that it’s automatically approved if no action is taken

Just now, SJgunguy9899 said:

Thanks, I read it over and I’m not convinced.. it states that judges must review carry permits and appeals at least once every 30 days and should not exceed that 30 day timeframe without good cause. 
 

now I’m not a lawyer, I’m just your average everyday guy but.. my understanding of that is they have to review at least once every 30 days, doesn’t say they have to approve or deny. Also doesn’t say that it’s automatically approved if no action is taken

I agree it's just a directive but some have taken it to mean signed by judge, but I don't agree. Just posting to show what people are referring to.

 

Just now, NorthernYankee said:

I agree it's just a directive but some have taken it to mean signed by judge, but I don't agree. Just posting to show what people are referring to.

 

Gotcha. Thanks. 

2 hours ago, Variant said:

I am going to start the process for applying now. I just called my local police department to ask for a case number to use to scheduling the fingerprinting, he says that the case number is given out after I submit the full application. Isn’t that reversed? 

Case number is only needed for Identigo so your fingerprints will have a number which PD can recognize...When I started my PD gave me a packet of instructions and a case number...But ever PD tweaks a little.

A friend on another Forum went to the Nappen seminar yesterday. He reported that Nappen is hot on the carry in car issue and Nappen expects it to be resolved in 2 week given it is a 2A and also a Civil Rights violation...I don't have anymore details as I was not at the seminar, but if someone else was there they can weigh in...Really great news but we pretty much new it wouldn't stand very long given it is so crazy.

It really is crazy. Those judges are literally telling people to take a handgun out in public and operate it. I made seven or eight stops today, imagine I had to remove the handgun and unload it each time, then reload it again?  

***DELETED***

***DELETED***

***DELETED***

***DELETED***

***DELETED***

Thanks to everyone for the advice on fingerprinting and the case number.

My initial concern was that this was the wrong way to do it and I was given advice by my PD that would end up causing issues down the line. But it seems like it’s OK doing it this way as long as that’s what they want.

10 hours ago, Mr.Stu said:

True, and the range portion is supposed to be 2 hours. Not sure how you make 5 shots last 2 hours.

After each shot you must reload the case with a single stage press.

2 hours ago, nooch450 said:

The 30 day limit on the court directive #06-19 is useless in practice.

It would be like passing a law against speeding but there being no fines or consequences attached when people are caught doing it.

Basically, why should a judge who is reluctant to review permits in the first place care about meeting a 30 day deadline when not meeting the deadline has no effect on them or the process?

Supreme Court of New Jersey adopted the Directive making it mandatory. 
 

If there is one thing Supreme Court Justices get uppity about it’s having lower court judges not abide by their mandates. 

2 hours ago, samiam said:

Meh. I think a reasonable interpretation (even among the legal fraternity) of "review" in this context is that it is a process that must lead to either approval or rejection.

I would like to think that as well. But it clearly doesn’t state that an approval or denial will be issued upon “review”. Also, how do we even know that is even being followed? Is someone checking in on the judge to see if every application was reviewed at least once in the last 30 days? Is there anyone to even hold them accountable for it? It also doesn’t state anywhere that if beyond 30 days will be automatic approval. Unfortunately, I don’t believe there is any 30 day Superior Court law. Again, that’s my interpretation 

3 hours ago, Combat Auto said:

A friend on another Forum went to the Nappen seminar yesterday. He reported that Nappen is hot on the carry in car issue and Nappen expects it to be resolved in 2 week given it is a 2A and also a Civil Rights violation...I don't have anymore details as I was not at the seminar, but if someone else was there they can weigh in...Really great news but we pretty much new it wouldn't stand very long given it is so crazy.

What is the carry in car issue?

4 hours ago, NorthernYankee said:

I agree it's just a directive but some have taken it to mean signed by judge, but I don't agree. Just posting to show what people are referring to.

 

Remember that "ATTORNEY GENERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT DIRECTIVE NO. 2022-07" is merely a directive as well yet it has flipped the switch on justifiable need. There are people receiving permits although not as many or as quickly as any of us would like. So directives are followed, the judges just need to be reminded.

26 minutes ago, joeg said:

What is the carry in car issue?

Yes Sir, it will not stand, give it a few weeks