I didn't see this discussed before.  If I overlooked it, please forgive me.

On May 20, 2019, the Administrative Director of the Courts in NJ issued a directive outlining uniform procedures to be followed by Superior Court judges when considering carry permit applications, whether approved or denied by the local chief of police; and denials of FPID cards and handgun purchase permits.  Mandates a hearing before decision if the court has any concerns about whether a permit should be issued and mandates adherence to a 30 day review period.

Also, the NJ Supreme Court heard argument in the Carlstrom case yesterday which is to decide whether a carry permit applicant is entitled to a hearing before the Superior Court rules on whether a permit should be granted/denied.  The Court will likely defer to this directive on a going-forward basis.  Not sure if Lou Nappen's client is going to get his hearing, however.  Several of the judges questioned what type of meaningful evidence Carlstrom could have presented that would have made a difference.

May 20, 2019 Directive on Gun Permits (07384020xA1E35).pdf

But I thought the 14th, which is included in Cheeseman’s case, eliminates the decision making process. 

Looks like this judge believes you have to at least convincingly pretend the law is not a fiction and actually apply it and hold those subject to it somewhat accountable within the letter of the law. We shall see if they are correct. 

 

 

 

 

On 10/25/2019 at 5:03 PM, Princetonian58 said:

I didn't see this discussed before.  If I overlooked it, please forgive me.

On May 20, 2019, the Administrative Director of the Courts in NJ issued a directive outlining uniform procedures to be followed by Superior Court judges when considering carry permit applications, whether approved or denied by the local chief of police; and denials of FPID cards and handgun purchase permits.  Mandates a hearing before decision if the court has any concerns about whether a permit should be issued and mandates adherence to a 30 day review period.

Also, the NJ Supreme Court heard argument in the Carlstrom case yesterday which is to decide whether a carry permit applicant is entitled to a hearing before the Superior Court rules on whether a permit should be granted/denied.  The Court will likely defer to this directive on a going-forward basis.  Not sure if Lou Nappen's client is going to get his hearing, however.  Several of the judges questioned what type of meaningful evidence Carlstrom could have presented that would have made a difference.

May 20, 2019 Directive on Gun Permits (07384020xA1E35).pdf 968.22 kB · 9 downloads

It is beyond me as to why the county prosecutor would get involved with a ccw license application..... never mind the judge.

6 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:

It is beyond me as to why the county prosecutor would get involved with a ccw license application..... never mind the judge.

The judge is in the law. The county prosecutor is a convenient way of killing the case without having to give people their day in court. There’s no reasoning for it.