Long Island Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,956 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
State senator proposes liberalizing NJ gun-carry law

A South Jersey senator has proposed a new law considerably liberalizing New Jersey's concealed-weapons-carrying laws, but the whopping fee and required proficiency demonstration will not make this new law attractive to libertarians.

Matt Friedman of The Star-Ledger (Newark) Statehouse Bureau reported yesterday on the bill, S2264, which Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) actually introduced last Monday. It amends the current concealed-carry law (NJS 2C:58-4) to allow a person to carry a gun for reasons going far beyond the current standard. According to current law, an applicant may receive a concealed-carry permit only if he satisfies his local police chief, and then a judge, that he has a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. Van Drew's new law, among other things, strikes that.

"You have to fear for your life, that you're going to be killed, in essence," said Van Drew. "It's virtually never done." He has a point: New Jersey has issued 1,595 new permits since 2007, far fewer than neighboring States.

According to HandgunLaw.us, New Jersey, one of a handful of "may-issue" States, does not honor the non-resident carry permits of other States. Any non-resident who wants to carry a gun in New Jersey must apply for a permit in advance, a process that the site describes as "very difficult." 15 States honor New Jersey's carry permits (either kind); Michigan honors New Jersey resident permits only. Van Drew's bill says nothing about honoring out-of-State permits. But non-residents, applying to the Superintendent of State Police, would be subject to the same qualification requirements as residents and might find obtaining a New Jersey non-resident permit easier, because the "justifiable need" requirement would go away for them, too.

Van Drew's new law would require a background check, courses in gun safety and when the use of force is lawful, demonstrate proficiency in using the particular gun he proposes to carry, and pay an annual fee of $500. That fee alone is a show-stopper to many, especially because this is an annual fee, not the biennial $20 fee charged at present. Van Drew admits that the chief reason for the fee is to provide yet another source of revenue. The new law provides that of that $500 fee, $50 is to go to the issuing law-enforcement authority, another $50 to the relevant County Clerk's office, and the rest to the state General Fund.

Van Drew has said nothing about repealing the law, signed by former Governor Jon S. Corzine, that limits New Jersey residents to buying only one handgun per month, though he opposed that law when the legislature passed it last year.

The webmasters of HandgunLaw.us could not be reached for comment, but a look at their main page, and especially their recommended reading list, suggests that they would not object in principle to the notion of having a permit holder be aware of the responsibility that carrying a weapon involves. Whether they would approve of charging a $500 fee, and earmarking $400 of that to the State Treasury, is another matter.

Friedman quotes Bryan Miller, head of CeasefireNJ, as being aghast at the prospect of any liberalization of concealed-carry permits:

http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/state-senator-proposes-liberalizing-nj-gun-carry-law
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38,956 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
State senator proposes liberalizing NJ gun-carry law

A South Jersey senator has proposed a new law considerably liberalizing New Jersey's concealed-weapons-carrying laws, but the whopping fee and required proficiency demonstration will not make this new law attractive to libertarians.

Matt Friedman of The Star-Ledger (Newark) Statehouse Bureau reported yesterday on the bill, S2264, which Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) actually introduced last Monday. It amends the current concealed-carry law (NJS 2C:58-4) to allow a person to carry a gun for reasons going far beyond the current standard. According to current law, an applicant may receive a concealed-carry permit only if he satisfies his local police chief, and then a judge, that he has a "justifiable need" to carry a handgun. Van Drew's new law, among other things, strikes that.

"You have to fear for your life, that you're going to be killed, in essence," said Van Drew. "It's virtually never done." He has a point: New Jersey has issued 1,595 new permits since 2007, far fewer than neighboring States.

According to HandgunLaw.us, New Jersey, one of a handful of "may-issue" States, does not honor the non-resident carry permits of other States. Any non-resident who wants to carry a gun in New Jersey must apply for a permit in advance, a process that the site describes as "very difficult." 15 States honor New Jersey's carry permits (either kind); Michigan honors New Jersey resident permits only. Van Drew's bill says nothing about honoring out-of-State permits. But non-residents, applying to the Superintendent of State Police, would be subject to the same qualification requirements as residents and might find obtaining a New Jersey non-resident permit easier, because the "justifiable need" requirement would go away for them, too.

Van Drew's new law would require a background check, courses in gun safety and when the use of force is lawful, demonstrate proficiency in using the particular gun he proposes to carry, and pay an annual fee of $500. That fee alone is a show-stopper to many, especially because this is an annual fee, not the biennial $20 fee charged at present. Van Drew admits that the chief reason for the fee is to provide yet another source of revenue. The new law provides that of that $500 fee, $50 is to go to the issuing law-enforcement authority, another $50 to the relevant County Clerk's office, and the rest to the state General Fund.

Van Drew has said nothing about repealing the law, signed by former Governor Jon S. Corzine, that limits New Jersey residents to buying only one handgun per month, though he opposed that law when the legislature passed it last year.

The webmasters of HandgunLaw.us could not be reached for comment, but a look at their main page, and especially their recommended reading list, suggests that they would not object in principle to the notion of having a permit holder be aware of the responsibility that carrying a weapon involves. Whether they would approve of charging a $500 fee, and earmarking $400 of that to the State Treasury, is another matter.

Friedman quotes Bryan Miller, head of CeasefireNJ, as being aghast at the prospect of any liberalization of concealed-carry permits:

http://www.examiner.com/essex-county-conservative-in-newark/state-senator-proposes-liberalizing-nj-gun-carry-law
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
if Bryan Miler doesn't like it then I guess I'm for it.. but they need to do something about that $500 fee... that is ridiculous.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
if Bryan Miler doesn't like it then I guess I'm for it.. but they need to do something about that $500 fee... that is ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
What a difference two lawsuits make. Until this year you would have never seen anything like this happen in NJ.

I say get it passed any way possible, then have someone sue on grounds that the fee is discriminatory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,894 Posts
What a difference two lawsuits make. Until this year you would have never seen anything like this happen in NJ.

I say get it passed any way possible, then have someone sue on grounds that the fee is discriminatory.
 

·
INFIDEL
Joined
·
7,262 Posts
an applicant may receive a concealed-carry permit only if he satisfies his local police chiefand then a judge , Is that what the 500 dollar fee is for? A BRIBE?
 

·
INFIDEL
Joined
·
7,262 Posts
an applicant may receive a concealed-carry permit only if he satisfies his local police chiefand then a judge , Is that what the 500 dollar fee is for? A BRIBE?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
It's a giant step forward (shall issue) with a few smaller steps backwards (testing and fees)... I think it is a net gain but taking a page from the anti's playbook, agree to something then keep asking for more.  I'd pay it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
It's a giant step forward (shall issue) with a few smaller steps backwards (testing and fees)... I think it is a net gain but taking a page from the anti's playbook, agree to something then keep asking for more.  I'd pay it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,575 Posts
Pate said:
The question is would you pay if NYS went the same way? Maybe we need a poll?
One time fee? Yes. But this is NY, they would find a way to make it annual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,575 Posts
Pate said:
The question is would you pay if NYS went the same way? Maybe we need a poll?
One time fee? Yes. But this is NY, they would find a way to make it annual.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top