filled out

Don't know if this is the exact definition, as per the law, of justifiable need but it's close:

 

 “urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant’s life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun."

 

Is this written into some law or is really a matter of the AG's discretion? 'Cause it seems to me that simply changing the definition to "all legal purposes" would do the trick.

 

Honestly how many ex-cops really qualify based on "justifiable need"? You don't hear of many former officers being confronted, years after retirement, by criminals they helped put away.

and yet if you had that urgent need as demonstratable, you would in theory not have time to wait for them to grant permission.

Filled it out.

and yet if you had that urgent need as demonstratable, you would in theory not have time to wait for them to grant permission.

a.k.a DEAD

done

Filled it out even though I am a KY resident.

All done.

If you havent already IMO its a good idea to "like" NJ2AS on Facebook. You may find further support or at least get people who you would not normally consider "gun people" into the conversation.

When NJ2AS was considering this approach, their language (researched?) indicated that a CCW denial did NOT hurt you the way a NJ FPID denial would.

When NJ2AS was considering this approach, their language (researched?) indicated that a CCW denial did NOT hurt you the way a NJ FPID denial would.

 

..Who?

 

Let's say, best-case scenario, we get 500 people applying and all are turned down. How does that number figure with the number that are granted each year counting everyone including retired cops? They'll change the number they brag about from 92% to 63% or 40% or even 30%, which reasonably falls within the realm of "may-issue."

 

You document 500 law-abiding citizens applying and you document the results of those 500. The result will be 0 out of 500, or 0%. If the state whips out a number that says 63%, then there is obviously a disparity between 500 people hitting 0% and the state number of 63% that needs to be explained. The explanation would be NJ obviously does not honor the right to bear arms, is a No Issue State, and only gives licenses to cops and the elite (or restricted licenses to armed guards).

 

They say Illinois was a No Issue State, but they actually allowed the same people to carry under the same standards but simply did so without pretending to offer a license citizens could apply for.

  You document 500 law-abiding citizens applying and you document the results of those 500. The result will be 0 out of 500, or 0%. If the state whips out a number that says 63%, then there is obviously a disparity between 500 people hitting 0% and the state number of 63% that needs to be explained. The explanation would be NJ obviously does not honor the right to bear arms, is a No Issue State, and only gives licenses to cops and the elite (or restricted licenses to armed guards).

 

They say Illinois was a No Issue State, but they actually allowed the same people to carry under the same standards but simply did so without pretending to offer a license citizens could apply for.

They already use issues to ex-LEO, security guards, rock stars, judges, and prosecutors to boast that they approve some high percentage of applicants. No reason they would not turn down the 500 and then boast that they issue to 67% of applicants. 

 

Yes the press always gets NJ wrong. If I read one more time that Illinois was the "last state to acknowledge the right to carry a firearm" I'm going to puke, photograph it, and post it here.

 

"May issue" means just that. It's up to them. And in all honesty NJ may issue you a carry permit if you meet their criteria, which apparently have survived judicial review. It would take a lucky stroke of judicial activism in this part of the world to get NJ's "may issue" overturned by a judge. Like the favorable 80% of the panel dying the morning of the vote.

 

This is why I say over and over that a judicial remedy stopped being viable a long time ago, before whatever legal district we're in went whole-hog liberal. We will never get CC in this state through judicial edict.

There's a serious communication problem here. I'm just going to punt.

Done

They already use issues to ex-LEO, security guards, rock stars, judges, and prosecutors to boast that they approve some high percentage of applicants. No reason they would not turn down the 500 and then boast that they issue to 67% of applicants.

 

Yes the press always gets NJ wrong. If I read one more time that Illinois was the "last state to acknowledge the right to carry a firearm" I'm going to puke, photograph it, and post it here.

 

"May issue" means just that. It's up to them. And in all honesty NJ may issue you a carry permit if you meet their criteria, which apparently have survived judicial review. It would take a lucky stroke of judicial activism in this part of the world to get NJ's "may issue" overturned by a judge. Like the favorable 80% of the panel dying the morning of the vote.

 

This is why I say over and over that a judicial remedy stopped being viable a long time ago, before whatever legal district we're in went whole-hog liberal. We will never get CC in this state through judicial edict.

With all due respect, you seem to suggest a get-out-vote solution. The political environment in NJ now the best it could be in long time for 2A, yet its no go.

My plan: Everyone take the survey; when the time comes, everyone apply for ccw (no exceptions - all of us regular citizens apply); and then let's see where the cards fall.

Done.  My wife and I are both in

Done, got my wife on it too 

With all due respect, you seem to suggest a get-out-vote solution. The political environment in NJ now the best it could be in long time for 2A, yet its no go.

1. I have already indicated though that survey that I will apply. I'm willing to waste my time and effort in a futile, last-ditch effort. Because that is what it will be.

 

2. Do you read my tagline? I have argued, with stats to back me up, that we could vote ourselves better gun laws. Overwhelmingly, other states got there through legislation, not through the courts. Everybody knows that. Instead we chase pipe dreams like this project. I'll go along for the long, tortuous, expensive, disappointing ride, however.

 

Given the 2A leadership in this state and nationally we might as well light candles. I have more faith in invisible, unknowable spirits. 

 

Not to get too melodramatic, "I wanna be around" when they break your heart to bits. 

Completed.

Done! 

Ready 

Willing

Able

Done.

Not to get too melodramatic, "I wanna be around" when they break your heart to bits. 

 

Nice!  Damn, that kid can sing!

 I have argued, with stats to back me up, that we could vote ourselves better gun laws. Overwhelmingly, other states got there through legislation, not through the courts. Everybody knows that. Instead we chase pipe dreams like this project. I'll go along for the long, tortuous, expensive, disappointing ride, however.

People who quote themselves ought to be committed.

 

At an event today at the range four people at my table during lunch lamented, in different ways, the apathy (with respect to voting) among NJ gun owners. At least two other people agreed. Several acknowledged that we could win back the legislature through a sneak voting attack.

 

The benefits would extend well beyond guns.

People who quote themselves ought to be committed.

 

At an event today at the range four people at my table during lunch lamented, in different ways, the apathy (with respect to voting) among NJ gun owners. At least two other people agreed. Several acknowledged that we could win back the legislature through a sneak voting attack.

 

The benefits would extend well beyond guns.

Yes

So did this explode before it even took off?