On a more serious note, there are really two questions here, the first is:

 

Would you prefer to

 

A. Have a weak shall issue system now, with Van Drew's additional requirements understanding that, afterward, it will be much more difficult to overturn the new requirements than the "justifiable need" requirement.

 

B. Have a better shall issue system in two to three years without Van Drews requirements by continuing to fight to overturn the "justifiable need" component.

 

My answer is B.

 

The second question is, if Van Drew's scheme were to be implemented despite your objections, would you:

 

A. Reluctantly pay the fee, carry, and keep fighting to remove the new restrictions.

 

B. Not pay the fee and not carry out of principle.

 

C. Not pay the fee because I can't afford it.

 

D. Pay the fee because I'm okay with the fee (and the other restrictions). No big deal.

 

E. I like pie!

 

In this case, my choice is A.

 

From reading the posts, it seems to me that some people are looking at this from the point of view of the first question, and some are looking at it from the point of view of the second. I think that our opinions are probably closer than we realize.

I would:

 

A. Reluctantly pay the fee, carry, and keep fighting to remove the new restrictions.

 

 

 

I know.... I know.... I agree, we shouldnt have to pay....

 

But..... better to have it, and not need it.... then need it, and not have it.

 

Or god forbid, I am in a situation where I have to defend my life or that of a loved one.... and I chose not to carry because of the $500 fee.... I would never forgive myself.

I'm on the fence. I'd love to carry, especially in some situations and in some places where I go. However, the cost is extremely prohibitive and I hate the fact that we'd have to go through so much to get it.

While I would like to pretend that I would not pay the fee.. I am pretty sure that I would reluctantly pay..

I would pay to play. The simple reality is that state level govt doesn't care about your principles or any principles in most cases. If everyone stood on their principles and this got denied, whats to say you will ever see a CCW in NJ. 10-20 years from now you could still not have CCW and kicking yourself in the butt for not taking it while you had the chance.

this honestly feels dirty to some degree.. almost as if you are literally bribing government.. to the point of saying hey I really want to carry a gun.. and they are like.. well.. if you give us some money we will let you.. the more I think about it the more irritating it is..

this honestly feels dirty to some degree.. almost as if you are literally bribing government.. to the point of saying hey I really want to carry a gun.. and they are like.. well.. if you give us some money we will let you.. the more I think about it the more irritating it is..

I'm with you..........the way I see it;; 1st year you pony up $60 for the background,$125 for nra basic pistol saftey then

$135 for ccw law and use of force training...and if the judge approves you get to pay $500 for a limited permit..

thats $820 to carry..and renewal is the same process with a sike eval added..

missing is the part about not requireing the courses be taken every year;

so to me that means a carry permit is over $800 a year not $500 plus whatever the $$ sike eval is...

this honestly feels dirty to some degree.. almost as if you are literally bribing government.. to the point of saying hey I really want to carry a gun.. and they are like.. well.. if you give us some money we will let you.. the more I think about it the more irritating it is..

 

that's how it feels to me....dirty. after whatever fees the township governments tack on, it could easily be $1k per year. sure you can't put a price on your or your family's safety, but that's just extortion done by the government (nothing new here)

If I am going to

 

pay to qualify

pay to take psych

pay to be licensed

 

I might as well be a cop and get paid to carry... or be %150 in the clear if I ever have to shoot given the insane level of qualification required... In other words with that level of training I should be able to say "that person was a threat and deadly force was needed" and that in itself should be considered an expert opinion.. I am not against paying a modest amount for licensing process... I am not even against qualifying on the range.. but if at 30+ years old I have never been considered psychologically unfit, never committed, hell never even on any type of serious script, and you already trust me enough to own guns... I would say it is a pretty safe bet that I am not going to go out and start shooting people up..

 

the core of the problem is the same as it has always been.. one thing does not relate to the other.. qualifying.. psychological screening.. license fees.. they don't stop bad people from carrying guns.. crazy people are not going to run out and try to legally do things.. they are going to just do whatever they want..

Im also thinking of the problems that will happen if you ever have to use your concealed weapon. We already can't shoot someone on our property. Whats going to happen if you are forced to shoot someone in a parking lot somewhere? We arent even protected from civil lawsuits in our own homes!

I'm with you..........the way I see it;; 1st year you pony up $60 for the background,$125 for nra basic pistol saftey then

$135 for ccw law and use of force training...and if the judge approves you get to pay $500 for a limited permit..

thats $820 to carry..and renewal is the same process with a sike eval added..

missing is the part about not requireing the courses be taken every year;

so to me that means a carry permit is over $800 a year not $500 plus whatever the $$ sike eval is...

 

I didn't think of it that way. Forget it then! Ugh.

P.S. One of the comments on NJ.com makes a good point. No where in that bill does it mention "concealed" carry. It only states "permits to carry". So is this bill talking about CCW or Open Carry?

qualifying.. psychological screening.. license fees.. they don't stop bad people from carrying guns.. crazy people are not going to run out and try to legally do things.. they are going to just do whatever they want..

 

and that's the most ridiculous thing about "gun control" (as we all know and have repeated it so many times) - "bad people" don't care about the law... magazine capacity, CCW, "evil features" - to a crazy or a criminal or a terrorist - they don't matter.

 

 

Im also thinking of the problems that will happen if you ever have to use your concealed weapon. We already can't shoot someone on our property. Whats going to happen if you are forced to shoot someone in a parking lot somewhere? We arent even protected from civil lawsuits in our own homes!

 

+1

 

 

P.S. One of the comments on NJ.com makes a good point. No where in that bill does it mention "concealed" carry. It only states "permits to carry". So is this bill talking about CCW or Open Carry?

 

Open Carry like a NJ COWBOY!!! yeeeee - haw!!!

See: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18784-nj-senator-pushes-law-to-carry-handguns/

 

Obviously we're all upset by this bill, pushing for an unbelievably high price to carry in NJ. I'm curious how many people would actually pay it though?

 

 

Why do we have to pay for a right that states "shall not be infringed".... Why do we [even] need to discuss this? Do we pay for free speech? Do we pay to pray? I dunno' it sounds like paying for bottled water to water the lawn...

So is this bill talking about CCW or Open Carry?

 

NJ law makes no distinction between open or concealed carry. One with a NJ carrying permit could do either, one without a permit could do neither.

redacted

Also, the "I like pie" option was a stupid idea, thanks for skewing the poll with 14 useless answers.

Pie is never stupid

 

 

ETA: but since I'm one of the pie voters, I should clarify. Yes, I would pay the $500, but I think it's a horrible precedent that will ultimately make things worse instead of better.

Why do we have to pay for a right that states "shall not be infringed".... Why do we [even] need to discuss this? Do we pay for free speech? Do we pay to pray? I dunno' it sounds like paying for bottled water to water the lawn...

I think this point has been stated and over stated, but can't be stated enough! there's no gov't fee for practicing your faith or speaking freely or any of the Constitutional guarantees. I, like most on this forum feel: what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear?!?!?!?! but our gov't has been hijacked and the US Constitution is ignored at will, especially in NJ.

Is there ANY state that doesn't charge some fee for a CCW permit? I know one or two states have a lifetime permit (which costs money) and most have a renewing CCW permit that also costs money. The only states I know of that don't charge for CCW permits are the couple that recently changed their laws and don't require a permit to CCW.

 

:thsmiley_deadhorse:

I would pay it now, knowing that it allows open carry.. and carry like a masterpiece arms 9mm on my hip in a holster.. as long as it's a pistol right? lol

a nominal charge to cover expenses and some training is fine by me. someone before said, the machines for fingerprinting don't run themselves and trainers don't work for free. if you want to exercise your free speech rights and publish a book - you have to pay a publisher to print it. if you go to church/synagogue/whatever - you're often asked to pay a tithe. nominal fees are understandable - around $ 50 - 100 per year would be reasonable. we're in NJ after all, so to hope for a lower fee is unreal. constant psych evaluations are unreasonable. a $500 "just because" fee is ridiculous.

I wouldn't pay a penny for open carry. But I'm not a fan of open carry, so take that for what it's worth.

I don't have issues with requiring some type of proof of being able to safely handle firearms (NRA course, Hunter safety, DD-214, etc) because, unlike other free states, a good majority of the NJ population (especially this next generation of younger gun owners) haven't experienced an environment that promoted safe firearms handling. But a psych evaluation? Annual fees? Laws already in the books that would not favor a law-abiding citizen if they were in a fight-or-die situation?

Maybe if this went through, it would help promote the over-arching philosophy of the Second Amendment; and values and beliefs of freedom, liberty, and what it is to be a law-abiding, armed citizen... but I feel like that would still be lost in the shuffle, and the whole point of promoting an environment where firearms aren't vilified wouldn't really change.

 

While I wouldn't pay to play personally, I would support for the bill to be passed because it would be a step forward for 2A rights and awareness (and what I said above). Still, as its been argued relentlessly, I believe the issue is not CCW in NJ...

I'd just carry illegally out of spite.

I can't believe how many people on here are willing to pay to exercise a constitutional right. Would you pay $500 to be able to exercise free speech? How about to attend the church of your choice? What gives NJ the right to use our rights as a revenue generator?

 

I can understand nominal fees to cover expenses - but we already do that with NICS, FPID, P2P etc, etc. What more are we going to put up with in order to be able to defend ourselves? Even $500 for five years is ludicrous, but the bill states that's the proposed annual fee.

 

I think too many people have been drinking the NJ kool-aid for far too long to think that this scheme, by the tax & spend dumbocrats, is OK. Oh boy, look, they're going to let me exercise a right and it's only going to cost me $500 per year. Wake-up and get real. Talk about slippery slopes.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

On principle, I'm against the $500 fee (unless it was a lifetime permit like Indiana has) and I'm against the qualification requirement (twice a year? How many of you get that bad handling a gun in 6 months?), however, I'm not against the bill itself.

 

Before I have to don the flame suit, let me explain why. For years and years we've been losing our rights a little at a time. Recently we've been getting some of those rights back (Heller, McDonald, etc), but, just like they were lost, they are being regained a little at a time. Here in NJ, we took a giant step backward on the 1st anniversary of Heller (OGAM) and we haven't made any forward progress since then. We have elected a not-so-anti-gun governor and we now have a not-so-anti-gun president of the senate, so the onslaught has subsided for the time being. Mike Carroll has introduced shall-issue carry permit legislation every year for as long as I can remember. And every year it languishes in committee and doesn't even get so much as a page 12 mention in any NJ paper. But Jeff Van Drew (D) introduces one, and it makes the front page of NJ.com and has generated well over 200 comments in two days. It's safe to say we don't agree with any of the restrictions Van Drew has put into the bill, but he has been a solid vote for our side during his tenure (he was one of the remaining two nay votes from Democrats for OGAM in the senate). Steve Sweeney has also voted consistently our way, but he has never sponsored any pro-gun legislation; apparently he is too busy trying to further his own career to help remove unconstitutional restrictions on NJ citizens.

 

During the first 10 minutes of Tom Gresham's show yesterday he was talking to a couple guys from the California Rifle and Pistol Assoc. and they said that sometimes the goal of a bill introduction isn't necessarily to get that bill passed. Sometimes the goal is to bring the subject to the floor for debate so that a real discussion can take place. Without talking to Van Drew personally, I feel that this is his motivation.

 

Maybe he has a follow up bill ready to go for the following senate session that makes the permit $50.00 for 5 years with no qualifications. Maybe he feels that the dollar $ign$ in this bill will be just too tempting for the corrupt machine politicians to pass up. Whatever his reasons, this is a step forward. Right now, we have nothing.

 

Even if this bill goes nowhere and the SAF or the NRA brings a lawsuit to challenge the discretionary issue of permits, does anyone on this board honestly believe that our representatives won't do what DC and Chicago did; thumb their noses at the SCOTUS decision and enact something 100 times worse than what Van Drew is proposing now? Why wait for the lawsuit? It only postpones the inevitable. We are going to be fighting this for years and years, and whether we like it or not, we're going to have to have the support of at least some Democrats.

 

I say we call Van Drew's office and thank him for spearheading this important issue (and for recognizing that the lawsuits will be coming). We can express our opposition to the parts we don't agree with, but let him know that we do feel that this is a step forward, no matter how small a step it may actually be.

I can't believe how many people on here are willing to pay to exercise a constitutional right. Would you pay $500 to be able to exercise free speech? How about to attend the church of your choice? What gives NJ the right to use our rights as a revenue generator?

 

I can understand nominal fees to cover expenses - but we already do that with NICS, FPID, P2P etc, etc. What more are we going to put up with in order to be able to defend ourselves? Even $500 for five years is ludicrous, but the bill states that's the proposed annual fee.

 

I think too many people have been drinking the NJ kool-aid for far too long to think that this scheme, by the tax & spend dumbocrats, is OK. Oh boy, look, they're going to let me exercise a right and it's only going to cost me $500 per year. Wake-up and get real. Talk about slippery slopes.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

I agree completely.. as I said earlier it is basically a bribe... the only issue with your mind set is what other choice do we have? hopefully someone will initiate a lawsuit before anything can be done at all..

 

free rights > paid rights > no rights

 

So I am essentially considering payment for something as opposed to nothing..

 

and as you pointed out.. $500 this year.. $700 next year.. $2000 6 years from now? and allowing this nonsense allows them to say "oh no we allow carry.. see right here.. you just need the license"

I don't get it. Gangbangers in Newark can carry without a permit, so why not us? Hide it right, and if someone suspects something and may cause trouble, make a run for it.

I can't believe how many people on here are willing to pay to exercise a constitutional right. Would you pay $500 to be able to exercise free speech? How about to attend the church of your choice? What gives NJ the right to use our rights as a revenue generator?

 

I can understand nominal fees to cover expenses - but we already do that with NICS, FPID, P2P etc, etc. What more are we going to put up with in order to be able to defend ourselves? Even $500 for five years is ludicrous, but the bill states that's the proposed annual fee.

 

I think too many people have been drinking the NJ kool-aid for far too long to think that this scheme, by the tax & spend dumbocrats, is OK. Oh boy, look, they're going to let me exercise a right and it's only going to cost me $500 per year. Wake-up and get real. Talk about slippery slopes.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

 

Bob,

I think people (i.e. I would) would pay to get their foot in through the door. None of us thinks the system is fair or right as it stands or as it would be under this new proposal, but every step towards allowing more of the population to carry is a step in the right direction. I can easily see the legislators deciding after a year of this new policy, "well, so few people signed up, we must not need carry permits after all." Having thousands of people sign up sends a clear message. It's also much easier to fight to change something once you have it than it is to change something not yet in your grasp. And yes, I hate the idea of paying for something that is my right.

Imagine if we all paid $500 to the Second Amendment Foundation? They're our best bet for firearms rights.