Agreed, no one takes those people on Fox news seriously or even listens to them. They will just end up making us look like a bunch of bible thumping, white robe wearing, racists that just want to shoot everything that we don't understand.

 

Ahh - so you want to get it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC?

 

Yeah, good luck with THAT.

 

One minute of exposure on Fox will cause donations to roll in from all of free America - but yeah, go with your plan.

Thanks.  IANAL, but the keys to these types of things is to keep it simple and direct.  Besides the obvious (to us) language of the 2A, there is also the NJ State Constitution that states the following:

 

"ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

1.   All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

 

http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/lawsconstitution/constitution.asp

 

This.  Use the state constitution as your justifiable need.

We actually need as many diffrent reasons as possible this way it covers as many basesas possible

Ahh - so you want to get it on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC?

 

Yeah, good luck with THAT.

 

One minute of exposure on Fox will cause donations to roll in from all of free America - but yeah, go with your plan.

 

Yep you are correct we just don't need the far right cheerleading for us if they mention it on their radio shows that's fine but if they bring it up and start trying to rally for us it may have negative results

If the intent is to get rid of the justifiable need requirement than there is no "right" answer as to what is justifiable need.  A thousand people with a thousand different "needs" including the right to self protection, the right to exercise a constitutional right, my ex husband is violent, or anything else is a fine "justifiable need". 

 

The goal is to get denied, not to wow them with our amazing need to carry a firearm.   The story is that 1000 NJ residents were denied a right.  Nobody reporting on this, or sifting through applications is going to care what our need is.  Because currently ,no need is sufficient.

 

I totally agree with this.  Some people still seem to be thinking that if we can just dazzle them with some incredible, new way of explaining justifiable need, then they can get approved.  Never going to happen.  The point is to demonstrate by 1000 denials that their "justifiable need" is arbitrary, and is being used to deny us our Constitutional right.

I don't think any of us believe any of us will be approved. I'm not saying let's create some perfect "justifiable reason" that will get us all permits. Based on what we've seen we are definitely going to be denied. I'm saying if we can keep our "letters of need" as uniform as possible and IF they do give some people ccw permits and deny others, they can't use that to say "this is why we denied you" for the ones they approve.

 

But if we don't all agree on this maybe only some do it uniformly and the rest say what they want.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Norseman, yes I'm with you on that.  Of course, anyone is free to write what they want, but I agree with you and others who have said that having almost everyone write the same thing would eliminate one of the variables.

Norseman, yes I'm with you on that. Of course, anyone is free to write what they want, but I agree with you and others who have said that having almost everyone write the same thing would eliminate one of the variables.

Thanks OGG. I've really got my fingers crossed on this.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FYI - Stossel's show on Fox is talking about how it is next to impossible to get a CCW in NYC.  Reasons for rejection was similar to what we would hear in NJ....no justifiable reason....even though he has received death threats.  Show this episode is called "War Against The Little Guy" and appears to be about how the government has become more and more intrusive. 

 

Wife just turned it on. 

glenn, what I am telling you is none of that matters. And that's the problem.

 

Everyone wants to slow this down and have an intellectual debate about it. You can get the most eloquent speech writer to craft for you the most meticulous and beautiful reasoning for you to put on your application. You are still going to get rejected. Don't you think if beautiful words and rhetoric worked, that we would have just passed legislation on this already? that 20 of the bills they rammed through when 1000 people showed up to testify would have possibly gone the other way? Absolutely not, the state does not care about what you have to say.

 

We don't need a college lecture on our applications. we need rejections. Until we get tons of rejections, the narrative never changes. Every second we waste debating ONE ANOTHER on what to write, is another second we aren't spending CHANGING THE NARRATIVE.

 

You just need to take away the argument from the state. Save the suspense, you WILL get rejected no matter what you write. but that's what you want

 

I think you may have missed the gist of my post.  I know it doesn't matter what we write as to "why we need a ccw" and that what we need is action and rejections.  But there may be some sitting on the fence who may not even consider applying for a CCW.  If those people can see a reason why they may actually may want to have a CCW then that would add to the number of rejections and strengthen our assertion.  I was simply trying to reach out and give some ideas to some who may not have considered applying for a CCW. 

 

Additionally, to those who intend to apply at the start of the New Year,  I think we should be talking to our fellow firearm friends and let them know what is going on and see if we can get them to submit their application along with our own.  Kind of like the buddy system or a two for one sale!

If the intent is to get rid of the justifiable need requirement than there is no "right" answer as to what is justifiable need.  A thousand people with a thousand different "needs" including the right to self protection, the right to exercise a constitutional right, my ex husband is violent, or anything else is a fine "justifiable need". 

 

The goal is to get denied, not to wow them with our amazing need to carry a firearm.   The story is that 1000 NJ residents were denied a right.  Nobody reporting on this, or sifting through applications is going to care what our need is.  Because currently ,no need is sufficient.

 

 

wont NJ just say something like 

 

"the need to carry a gun is one we take very seriously, we definitely do allow individuals to carry guns. There are currently X number of licensed individuals that have been approved to carry a gun due to having the need"

 

and as soon as the reporter starts to put facts of individuals in the states face they will simply say something like 

 

"I am not able to discuss the individual facts in each and every one of those cases... but it is obvious that NJ does issue these licenses, we just do so by a strict standard"

 

 

 

I was always under the impression that the state had no obligation to issue any licenses to carry... but the fact that NJ issues a handful of them almost makes it worse... we all know who gets these licenses... but the state will just point at it and say "no problem.. nothing to see here.. we issue a license when it is needed on an individual basis"