I had a PP extended in June in Hillsborough and used it shortly afterward.

 

Just applied for two more, Hillsborough's policy is streamlined if you had one issued in the last year, no $18 record search charge, just $2 each when they are ready.

 

I'm gonna just extend these two when they approach 90 days, then apply for two more shortly after so I always have some on hand and don't ever again have to pay that $18 records search...at least as long as Hillsborough keeps this policy.

 

Blue1

This is what I do in hillsborough too, apply every few months to stay up to date in process

I guess he doesn't understand what the words "shall not be infringed" means. 

 

Possession of a firearm is prohibited in NJ unless you are exempted from the prohibition.  I think we've got "infringed" pretty well covered from the get-go.

3 out of 4 LEO's I know personaly said to me "Why do you need an AR?"  and 1 of 2 FBI agents (working in NJ) I know personally told me I should not have the right to carry.  My pole says 66% against lol.

 

Needless to say I no longer speak to those 4....

Then they should be relieved of their badges AND GUNS. They took an oath to defend the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. No one asked (well, I guess you did..), or cares what they think. Its not their job to have an opinion on the validity of that which they swore to uphold; certainly not while in uniform or while acting in any official capacity.

If they can't understand/respect the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, then they have no business hiding behind, claiming any air of authority derived from it, or being permitted to act in the name of the law.

You should have told them you need the AR, for when he and his like minded jack booted thugs get too far out of line........ The look on their faces would have been priceless.....

 

Personally, I think EVERY officer/agent of the law should have to pass classes on constitutional law, before being allowed to enforce anything. Further, they should be required to have detailed "sub-specialty" knowledge of the law, and various case laws/interpretations/etc... before being permitted to arrest anyone for an offense within that category. Ie, an officer must pass a test on traffic laws, before being allowed to engage in any traffic enforcement. If he sees something, he can stop someone, but can't issue any citations, or make any arrests (exigent circumstances/immediate danger excepted), until a "certified" traffic enforcement officer is on scene and approves of any desired actions.  ONLY officers with verified/certified proven extensive knowledge on firearms laws should be permitted to engage in any firearms related actions. Only "domestic violence" certified officers can go on those calls,etc..... Of course, again, legitimate emergencies requiring some degree of action to prevent immediate harm would be exempted, and "non-certified" officers could go as back up, but would be under the supervision of those certified.

 

There should also be complete accountability for false/mistaken arrests. If an officer arrests someone for something he knew, or SHOULD have known was not a crime ( I think they SHOULD know every time. If they are not sure, check with the prosecutor/DA FIRST), there should be real consequences for that officer. The whole, "lock 'em up and let the judge sort it out" attitude should be stopped right in its tracks. The only way that will happen is personal officer accountability. After watching a few co-workers get charged/convicted/fired/sent to jail for a "false arrest" / "unlawful detainment" type charges, they'll think twice about it.

Another Yay for East Brunswick. They extended two permits for me in under 24 hours

 

G

Then they should be relieved of their badges AND GUNS. They took an oath to defend the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. No one asked (well, I guess you did..), or cares what they think. Its not their job to have an opinion on the validity of that which they swore to uphold; certainly not while in uniform or while acting in any official capacity.

If they can't understand/respect the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, then they have no business hiding behind, claiming any air of authority derived from it, or being permitted to act in the name of the law.

You should have told them you need the AR, for when he and his like minded jack booted thugs get too far out of line........ The look on their faces would have been priceless.....

 

Personally, I think EVERY officer/agent of the law should have to pass classes on constitutional law, before being allowed to enforce anything. Further, they should be required to have detailed "sub-specialty" knowledge of the law, and various case laws/interpretations/etc... before being permitted to arrest anyone for an offense within that category. Ie, an officer must pass a test on traffic laws, before being allowed to engage in any traffic enforcement. If he sees something, he can stop someone, but can't issue any citations, or make any arrests (exigent circumstances/immediate danger excepted), until a "certified" traffic enforcement officer is on scene and approves of any desired actions.  ONLY officers with verified/certified proven extensive knowledge on firearms laws should be permitted to engage in any firearms related actions. Only "domestic violence" certified officers can go on those calls,etc..... Of course, again, legitimate emergencies requiring some degree of action to prevent immediate harm would be exempted, and "non-certified" officers could go as back up, but would be under the supervision of those certified.

 

There should also be complete accountability for false/mistaken arrests. If an officer arrests someone for something he knew, or SHOULD have known was not a crime ( I think they SHOULD know every time. If they are not sure, check with the prosecutor/DA FIRST), there should be real consequences for that officer. The whole, "lock 'em up and let the judge sort it out" attitude should be stopped right in its tracks. The only way that will happen is personal officer accountability. After watching a few co-workers get charged/convicted/fired/sent to jail for a "false arrest" / "unlawful detainment" type charges, they'll think twice about it.

 

This is something I have always had a HUGE problem with. They are protected by law from any repurcussions, nothing we can do for being falsely, or mistakingly, arrested. Complete bull shyt if you ask me.

 

I agree, they should know the law in order to enforce it. Many do not. I have met several that state they can arrest me for driving to the range with loaded mags, especially if they have the dreaded hollow point bullets in them. I usually tell them to check the law once again, but sometimes I'm not so nice and basically tell them to stick their attitude up their..............Well, you know. And they want to know why we treat them the way we do at times...... Don't want this to turn into a bashing thread so I'll stop here.