Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Opinion

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Garden State is known for being an anti-civil rights wasteland. Firearm possession in the state is by exemption or permits. Up until recently, the permitting regulating the possession of handguns and pistols was an out-of-reach unicorn. Handgun and pistol owners had to largely rely on exemptions of the law, as NJ Rev Stat § 2C:39-5 b (2021) states one must first obtain a permit to carry prior to possessing a handgun. However, now in our post NYSRPA v. Bruen world, obtaining a permit to carry is possible.

Social media sites have been buzzing with people applying, allegedly getting denied, and also some rumors of permits to carry actually getting issued. To say a lot of rumors have been abound would be an understatement.

There’s plenty of counterproductive talks, such as people “in the know” going off when the uninitiated refer to the New Jersey permit to carry as a “CCW” or a concealed carry permit. The fact that NJ makes no distinction between open or concealed carry and said permit is referred to as a “permit to carry” is not cause for berating those that quickly refer to the permit as a CCW or a concealed carry permit. A collective sigh of relief should be exhaled by all persons in this fight, and while some kind of corrective rudder is not a bad thing, let’s not act like we don’t know what people are talking about.

There’s also been a ton of counterproductive talks about what is required to rope and wrangle one of these one-horned horses in the land of one thousand diners. I have spoken to two verified permit-to-carry recipients in New Jersey and want to share that information.

The first thing we should divert our attention to is a document on the New Jersey State Police website called: “Permit To Carry Instructions“. While the document is not necessarily the best, it does outline the needed steps to take to apply for a permit to carry in New Jersey. It’s important to note that New Jersey, at this time, also does not make a distinction between resident and non-resident permits. Non-residents are to apply to the closest State Police barracks that are not on a toll road to where the applicant would be entering the state.

The first recipient of a New Jersey permits to carry that I spoke to was Jamie DeAngelis. DeAngelis lives in Warren County, in Hackettstown, New Jersey. DeAngelis told me that he dropped off his completed application on July 26th at his police department. The local range where DeAngelis shoots, RTSP in Randolph, he said, had the complete process of what to do from beginning to end on their web page.

DeAngelis said before going in for any qualifications, he practiced what he thought the qualification would be, shooting out to 25 yards. He said that at RTSP, he did their CCW Qualification Course, a holster draw course, and the qualification with the firearm(s) he intended on carrying. RTSP, for their qualification, seems to be working off of a modified version of the NJ Retired Police Officer Qualification, the HQC2, on an FBI “Q” target. RTSP lists the qualification as such:

• 50 round total (per firearm)
• 10 rounds at 3 yards
• 10 rounds at 5 yards
• 10 rounds at 7 yards
• 10 rounds at 10 yards
• 10 rounds at 15 yards

Once DeAngelis completed all the training elements, he assembled his application packet.

1. Application printed duplexed (on both sides) in triplicate, with live signatures from each reference on each application. All three applications with live notarization of the applicant’s signature on each one. From # S.P. 642
2. Consent For Mental Health Records Search filled out and signed in the presence of the issuing authority. Note, that some people have been having issues with this form and opening it in a web browser. If that’s the case, download it onto the computer and open it with whatever pdf viewer is installed. Form # S.P. 066
3. An affidavit stating lawful ownership of the firearms intended to be carried. Instead of a letter listing the firearms with the make, model, and serial number, an applicant can use their pink copies of pistol permits or receipts to prove ownership of the handguns.
4. The $50.00 certified money order was made out to “Treasurer, State of New Jersey.” (Make sure it’s signed before handing it in)
5. Color copies of driver’s license and birth certificate. Instead of a birth certificate, applicants can bring passports or naturalization paperwork to prove citizenship, along with their driver’s license.
6. Four 1.5″ x 1.5″ photos. These are called “passport photos”; however, passport photos are 2″ x 2″. It was noted that the correct size if trying to have someone look up the information at one of the many locations that provide this service is an Argentina-sized passport photograph.
7. The certified qualification, along with any other training certificates an applicant may have that are relevant.

Fingerprinting is a requirement in order to get a permit to carry. After receiving instructions from the issuing authority, one can go and get that done per their direction.

DeAngelis received his New Jersey permit to carry on August 12th. About the process, DeAngelis had a message he wanted to get out to everyone. He said to me that it’s important that people realize that this is obtainable. He talked about going on the record for everyone to learn from his process:

“That’s why I was willing to do it (go on the record) because I mean, I really want people to realize it’s doable. And not because everybody I talked to was afraid to put it through and what got me was like they’re waiting for somebody, for people to start posting that they’re getting it before they do it. So that’s why I kind of posted it because I want people to see people are getting them. It’s real. It’s safe.”

Anecdotally, DeAngelis told me about getting the call to pick up his permit:

“A lady called me, and it was funny the lady from the courthouse called and she’s like, ‘I’m so and so from the courthouse of Warren and Belvedere. Your permit is ready.’ And I knew one of my references just turned in this thing. So I thought she was one of my friends messing with me. And because a lot of them were saying, ‘Oh, you’re gonna get declined, you’re gonna get denied, you’re not gonna get that.’ Everyone kept telling me as I was dumb and stupid for putting it in so early, I was gonna get denied. So in the back of my head, I thought ‘I’m gonna get denied.’ I really started thinking there’s no chances it’s gonna happen, I’m gonna get denied. When she called me and told me it was done. I asked, ‘Who put you up to calling me? One of my friends? One of my friends did this.’ She started laughing. And she’s like, ‘No. I’m serious. You could come pick it up, you just have to sign it.’”

DeAngelis said he was issued a permit to carry with no restrictions.

The other person I spoke to who also received their New Jersey permit to carry is Keith S. from Passaic County. Keith asked to go by first name last initial for understandable privacy reasons. Much like DeAngelis, Keith went to his local and trusted range, which in his case was Gun For Hire at The Woodland Park Range.

Keith talked at length about the years of training he had been putting in getting ready for the day that pistol carry would become a reality in New Jersey. Following closely the detailed instructions put out by Gun For Hire, which can be read HERE, Keith went about getting his qualification done and assembled his application packet. Keith said he was in the first class of the first day that was being offered at Gun For Hire.

Gun For Hire also uses a similar modified qualification, as noted on their page:

This is not a beginner course! You will be required to demonstrate safety, familiarity, and accuracy. It is pass or fail.
– No holster needed
– All shooting from the ready position
– 50 rounds per firearm
– FBI Q target
– 24 rounds at 7 yards
– 14 rounds at 10 yards
– 6 rounds at 15 yards
– 6 rounds at 25 yards
For a total of 50 rounds. Must hit at least 40 rounds out of 50 (80%)

Keith ended up qualifying with two handguns, which he used copies of his pink pistol purchaser’s permit to prove ownership to his town. On Monday July 1st his completed packet was with his town and he sent in verification that his fingerprints were done. On July 18th, he got the call to come down to the courthouse to pick up and sign his permit. Keith told me about showing up to meet the judge:

“You meet with the judge and he reads the statute to you. And then he reads to you the firearms that are listed on your permit, to make sure that the serial number and the firearm match. Which as it happened on my my qualification form…it happens that my serial number starts with like a six, and on the form said I qualify with the model 66, Sig Sauer. So I, I told the judge, ‘I’m sorry, Your Honor, but that’s not true. I qualify with a Sig 365.’ So he’s like, ‘Oh, my God.’ He took me through the paperwork to pull out the pink slip, he told the clerk to go on the back end just and fix it. I wait a couple of minutes, I sat in the front. They went back, they redid my paperwork, came out, handed me my permit. He told me to laminate it, and we had a great chat about firearm safety and everything.”

The big thing that Keith emphasized while discussing the process was the importance of training. Keith said it’s our job to be good ambassadors to the New Jersey public, and show them that safe and responsible firearm carry is okay and a reality. He spoke about the training he got over the years from Gun For Hire in high regard, noting:

“I would describe Gun For Hire like if you have a family member that says ‘Listen, you want to get this done? I got a guy. Let’s do it.’ And they walk you through it and they help you. They boosted confidence in you. People going through the qualification that day that were scared out of their mind and they talked them down. They made everybody feel comfortable and at home because it’s a serious matter and they don’t want people to look bad or feel bad or do anything bad either. But there were people that did fail and they simply pulled them aside told them what they did wrong, taught them difference. And you know said ‘this equipment’s not right for you. That’s not good for you. Maybe you should try this.’ So, I would describe Gun For Hire like a pristine establishment that wants you to succeed. And they want the state, not not only gun owners, but the state in itself to feel comfortable and safe.”

Keith was issued a permit with restrictions noting the make, model, and serial number of the firearms he qualified with at Gun For Hire.

These are just two of the many stories that are circulating about people actually getting permits to carry in the state of New Jersey. These are verified examples, and not just hearsay. While these are the steps that these individuals took to get their permits, we’re not all guaranteed to have the same experiences. Hopefully in due time the process will become streamlined and easier to navigate. In the meantime let’s celebrate that a bit of liberty has been returned to The Garden State.

The reality of carry has come to New Jersey, yes, because of the victory in NYSRPA v. Bruen. But the entire process, as it is and as it develops was and is made possible because of the countless hours of work by many people. New Jersey’s state association, the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), with brilliant leaders and attorneys like Scott Bach and Daniel L. Schmutter, has really paved the way to make this a much smoother transition than could have come to the state. ANJRPC has been doing some serious heavy lifting, and letters from their “Strike Force” have offered some corrective rudder suggestions to jurisdictions that are not in line with the Constitution.

It is important to note that New York, where the opinion was directed, has now passed laws more stringent than they had prior to the opinion, and people in New Jersey are getting carry.

---

About John Petrolino:

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use, and NRA-certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on Twitter at @johnpetrolino, Facebook at @thepenpatriot and on Instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on “assault weapons,” a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

On July 22, 2022, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Superior, Colorado, from enforcing its ban on “assault weapons.” The city defines that category to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of four features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a barrel shroud.

Two gun-rights groups argued that Superior’s ordinance, which also bans magazines that hold more than ten rounds, violated the Second Amendment. Moore concluded that they had “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”

Moore noted that the plaintiffs had cited statistics to support their claim that the guns and magazines targeted by Superior’s ordinance “are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” He also mentioned an earlier case in his court where both sides had stipulated that “semiautomatic firearms are commonly used for multiple lawful purposes, including self-defense,” and that “lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms using a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds number in the tens of millions.”

Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That will be a formidable challenge, Moore suggested. “The Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public,” he said.

Like Superior’s ordinance, the bill that the House narrowly approved on July 29 covers “large capacity” magazines and includes a general definition of “assault weapons,” although its list of prohibited features is slightly different. It also bans many specific models by name.

During the debate over the bill, Democrats said the rifles they want to ban are “the weapon of choice for mass shooters,” which is not true: Most mass shooters use handguns. Democrats said the features targeted by the bill make rifles especially deadly, which also is not true: With or without those features, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Even while implying that the rifles covered by the ban are good for nothing but mass murder, Democrats emphasized that the bill would exempt the 24 million or so “assault weapons” that Americans already own. They refused to grapple with the constitutional implications of banning guns that millions of people use for lawful purposes.

When confronted by that reality, Republicans noted, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, “The problem is that they are in common use.” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the bill’s sponsor, likewise had no patience for Second Amendment arguments, saying, “Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.”

Unlike Nadler and Cicilline, federal judges like Moore cannot ignore the constitutional issue raised by this sort of legislation. Democrats will have to comply with the constraints imposed by the Second Amendment, no matter how much they might wish that it did not exist.

---

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

 

Smith & Wesson has fired back in a letter against the House Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats’ subpoena against the firearms manufacturer, Breitbart News can exclusively reveal.

On August 15, Smith & Wesson, represented by Schaerr Jaffe, sent a letter to House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) regarding the committee’s subpoena, which was issued on August 1.

Smith & Wesson CEO Mark Smith said this subpoena amounts to nothing more than politicians and the media attempting to “disparage” Smith & Wesson. He elaborated in a statement on Monday:

A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of  lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies.

 

But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.

 

It is no surprise that the cities suffering most from violent crime are the very same cities that have promoted irresponsible, soft-on-crime policies that often treat criminals as victims and victims as criminals. Many of these same cities also maintain the strictest gun laws in the nation.

 

But rather than confront the failure of their policies, certain politicians have sought more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously continuing to undermine our institutions of law and order. And to suppress the truth, some now seek to prohibit firearm manufacturers and supporters of the 2nd Amendment from advertising products in a manner designed to remind law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Mark Paoletta, a lawyer at Schaerr Jaffe representing Smith & Wesson, noted Smith & Wesson has tried to accommodate the committee’s request for information about its modern sporting rifles (MSRs) sales figures.

The left mistakenly often refers to these rifles as “assault weapons.”

As documented previously by Breitbart News, Smith & Wesson already divulged to the committee that MSRs comprise a majority of its sales, and that less than ten percent of its advertising focuses on MSRs.

Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asks a question during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing to examine the practices and profits of gun manufacturers, Wednesday, July 27, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

The firearms company also said it cannot track deaths or injuries, crimes attempted or carried out with semiautomatic rifles.

In a missive to Maloney, Paoletta explained the court precedent already details how Congress does not need very specific information about exact units sold or revenue.

The letter details many court cases to back up its legal argument, in what could be the foundation of a legal argument against the committee Democrats should they want to pursue a court case against Smith & Wesson:

And, in fact, Congress recently proved that it does not need such very specific information about exact units sold and revenue to do its job. On July 29, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives (the House) passed a ban on what you erroneously call “assault weapons.” This only confirms my prior argument that the Committee does not need “every scrap of potentially relevant” information to legislate. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020); accord Comm. on Ways & Means, U.S. House of Reps. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 21-5289, 2022 WL 3205891, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022) (“[T]he legislative process does not necessarily require full disclosure of all the facts in the way that criminal proceedings do.”)

Smith & Wesson Response Letter 8-15-22 by Breitbart News on Scribd

Paoletta also notes that court precedent, which includes legal opinions from now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that there is no constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles:

“There is no basis in Heller for drawing a constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (discussing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628–29 (2008)). See TRO at 10, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Town of Superior, No. 22-cv-01685- RM-NRN (D. Colo. July 22, 2022), ECF No. 18, where a Federal Judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the town from, among other things, banning MSRs: “The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning. However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

Paoletta also wrote “Congress must clearly spell out with even more specificity why it needs the granular level of information,” citing an example as the Supreme Court’s decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation. v. Bonta.

The lawyer representing Smith & Wesson noted the committee Democrats did not assuage any fears from Smith & Wesson that they would keep the company’s proprietary information confidential:

Unfortunately, those protocols did nothing to assure us that my client’s proprietary information would be kept confidential by the Committee. Quite the contrary, those protocols state merely that the Committee pledged only to confer with my client, to the extent practicable, regarding the possibility of disclosure, and that the Committee reserves the right to disclose such information, regardless of any objections my client might have. And, in fact, our concerns were justified evidenced by the Committee’s decision to release similar proprietary, business sensitive information from other firearm manufacturers, despite their objections.

Paoletta also noted Maloney allowed Sig Sauer, one of the largest firearms manufacturers, to settle for less information than what Smith & Wesson divulged to the committee. Sig Sauer “refused” to divulge any revenue totals and only told the committee that MSR sales amount to less than three percent of its total revenue.

In contrast, Smith & Wesson already told the committee that MSR sales comprise a majority of the company’s annual net sales.

Smith & Wesson has already tried to comply with the committee’s request for a hearing; however, the company did not want its CEO, Mark Smith, to be the only firearms executive present at a hearing discussing gun violence and potential gun control proposals.

Paoletta contended the subpoena is only meant to punish or embarrass Smith & Wesson::

In Mazars, the Supreme Court said, “Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (quoting Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957)). Based on the Committee’s actions, my client further objects to providing this additional information because, to any reasonable observer, the Subpoena is meant to punish Smith & Wesson for declining an invitation to testify at the Committee’s recent hearing. Finally, my client objects to Request 4 because it is only meant to punish or embarrass Smith & Wesson. Indeed, the information requested is simply not relevant to legislation as there is nothing that any of my client’s senior executives or directors could have said following those horrific shootings that would be relevant to any legislative purpose, and even more so since the House has already passed a ban on MSRs. The Committee already knows which MSRs were used in those shootings. It already knows how they were obtained. And it already knows what can happen if MSRs—or any firearms for that matter—are misused by criminals. Nothing more— especially the thoughts that my client’s executives may or may not have expressed among each other about particular tragedies—is needed to legislate.

Maloney, who has portrayed herself a strong advocate of gun control reform, was not present in person to vote for gun control in late July. Instead, Maloney voted by proxy, instead choosing to fundraise in Manhattan.

Suraj Patel, a primary opponent against Maloney, slammed her for voting by proxy. He said she is “grandstanding” on the issue of gun control.

“I would have 100 percent been there for the vote if I was in Congress,” he said.

“We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods,” Smith concluded in his statement. “We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points. We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.