IMO, unlike other states where a hunting lic. is enough proof, NJ will probably require at a minimum the standard LEO Qual. test for every applicant and then scheduling....they won't go along easy.

16 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

i'm gonna ask a question that's gonna sound like i'm being a dick....but i gotta ask. i am not intending this in any way bad mean or offensive.

 i thought there was some convo going on that the 2 lawyers that seem to handle most of the 2a cases here in pfrnj were both pretty much in favor of the status quo? now we're depending on one of them to get us outta the status quo?

 

This is patently ridiculous.  The prominent lawyers in New Jersey's 2A community do not prefer the "status quo", have never said they support the "status quo", and have done far more than most to change the "status quo".  

2 hours ago, JC_68Westy said:

I believe that the actual number of people denied is very low in NJ.  This is due to the fact that people just assume that they will be denied (rightfully so). Complaining about the lack of carry permits issued becomes a weak argument without the numbers to back it up.  It is very hard to prove that NJ has a de facto ban on carry.  The AG just needs to point out the high percentage of permits issued vs denials.  The numbers are hard to argue in court, the argument that it would be denied anyway comes off as an emotional argument.  Having a lot of denials would add greatly to the argument.

I see your point.. and I used to say the same thing...but now I'm thinking this:

1) we have NJ pols (stupidly) making sweeping statements to the press that reveal the bias against concealed carry (most recently, as I recall, Menendez saying something to the press like "we don't believe in concealed carry here in NJ". Well, there ya go! The bias is obvious even without large numbers of denials.

2) With the DC case - maybe it's no longer a matter of numbers anyway? They're going after the CONCEPT itself - that people even NEED a "special reason" - that simply the 2nd Amendment isn't enough and related to that, that EVERYONE doesn't have a right to protect themselves. They're going for the heart of the matter - that we can't have special classes of people, denying a whole bunch of people a constitutional right.

That's how I see it anyway! The only thing I wish is that there was a woman, a minority, etc. amongst one of these plaintiffs. I don't think there is. Just for PC reasons - makes it harder for the other side to argue....

Menendez doesn't speak for me.............I hear he can be bought.

1 hour ago, siderman said:

back to the original topic...NJ will always have the option to make this or any ccw case go away if the opt to. Just grant the plaintiffs their ccw- done.  No more court case. I love the angle of this case- selective granting of rights- but if the plaintifs are granted their license, its over. Or is it? ANJRPC has asked for what appears to be a line-up of more plaintiffs, those who have been denied perhaps in anticipation of  just that?  So. can NJ effectively keep this case (or any) from advancing buy paying off the applicants with ccw's? 

Another random thought....because i am not too familiar with ccw qualification isnt there a periodic range time shoot involved to maintain your ccw? If so how does the likes of a old hag like Loretta Weinburg do that? assuming she has a ccw.....

They are suing to have the "justifiable need" requirement removed.  The other examples of people who haven't applied are used to provide examples of the de facto ban resulting from the unlawful requirement of justifiable need.

1 minute ago, gleninjersey said:

They are suing to have the "justifiable need" requirement removed.  The other examples of people who haven't applied are used to provide examples of the de facto ban resulting from the unlawful requirement of justifiable need.

Now, why couldn't I say it that succinctly? 

5 hours ago, JC_68Westy said:

I have looked at this before and it is not a common question for states to ask.  Even if you were denied and move to a shall issue state a denial in NJ would not be a factor that would be considered.  The only state application I could find with the question is in NH.  All you have to do is provide a statement on the back of the form.  What do you have to lose?  

^^^^THIS^^^^

Plenty of NH carry permits were already granted to NJ residents that were denied in NJ!  All these applicants had to do was answer the question with, "Denied by NJ due to Justifiable Need".  Several of them sent a copy of their denial letter along with their application & $100 check.  ZERO of these applicants were denied by NH!  FWIW at this point NH is well aware by now how many NJ residents get denied.  

Additionally, everyone that was denied a CCW by NJ is still buying guns of every platform.  On the NJ application for P2P's they merely check "Yes" to the denial question and write-in "lack of Justifiable Need" as the reason.  There are so many of these type transactions at NJ FFL's, that even NJ NICS doesn't delay the purchases!  

Short version:  Everybody knows EVERYBODY KNOWS, so NO need to pussy-foot around applying to be denied  

Have you done it.......we're you denied.

Quote:

In 2014 the SCOTUS failed to grant cert in a New Jersey concealed carry case. The NJ law stands.

"The U.S. Supreme Court today let stand New Jersey's requirement that gun owners demonstrate a justifiable need in order to carry firearms in public, turning away another case over whether Americans have a constitutional right to be armed outside the home.

Several residents claimed the law was unconstitutional, but in refusing to take their case, the high court left in a place a ruling last fall from the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Philadelphia-based appeals court upheld New Jersey's requirement that gun owners demonstrate "specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means.""

http://www.nj.com/sussex-county/ind..._mans_appeal_on_carrying_a_gun_in_public.html

 

So we're basically taking another bite if the apple..........

23 minutes ago, xXxplosive said:

 

So we're basically taking another bite if the apple..........

Nope, THEY are. And good on THEM and some will help and say US.