Almost 90 days since handgun permit submission

[VFL]

2 hours ago, Bucndoe said:

Handgun permit or FID card ?

Handgun

[VFL]

28 minutes ago, hostak126 said:

are you covered by township police or state police? It's time to make a polite phone call to the chief and to your state reps.

Twp. Yea I think you’re right…

[Michael Britt]

Got a call today finally, Day 88!

[DJ0808]

2 hours ago, Michael Britt said:

Got a call today finally, Day 88!

Glad to hear you finally got it, but 88 days is ridiculous!!!

Enjoy whatever you end up purchasing 😊

[Michael Britt]

2 hours ago, DJ0808 said:

Glad to hear you finally got it, but 88 days is ridiculous!!!

Enjoy whatever you end up purchasing 😊

Want the 365 XL with the Romeo but Sig is pushing the Macro now and stopping production on the preceding models I was told...

[BowhunterNJ]

5 hours ago, Michael Britt said:

Got a call today finally, Day 88!

Someone make a call?

[Bucndoe]

There is an increase in Carry Permit applications which has added delays to the whole process. The same amount of people are now processing an increased workload of permits since the Supreme Court ruling. Go easy on the conspiracy theory nonsense

[thefirstndsecond]

Maybe take some of those IRS agents and hire some processing people.

How could the state in good conscious not hire more people given the increase in work load?

[vdep217]

5 minutes ago, thefirstndsecond said:

Maybe take some of those IRS agents and hire some processing people.

How could the state in good conscious not hire more people given the increase in work load?

I believe it will come to a head in court eventually. Them not being able to process in the time alloted is not our problem it's theirs to rectify to follow the 30 and 60 day time frames that the state has set.  But I believe a Supreme court ruling will lessen it more

Edited September 23, 2022 by vdep217

[Farmshine]

2 hours ago, Michael Britt said:

Want the 365 XL with the Romeo but Sig is pushing the Macro now and stopping production on the preceding models I was told...

I recently bought the macro, its a great shooting gun.  About the same size as the 365 XL.  It seems dealers are not having an east time getting them at the moment.  

[Bucndoe]

37 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

I believe it will come to a head in court eventually. Them not being able to process in the time alloted is not our problem it's theirs to rectify to follow the 30 and 60 day time frames that the state has set.  But I believe a Supreme court ruling will lessen it more

Over and over again it has been stated here and by case law that the 30 and 60 days are not a hard number to hang your hat on and cause a shyzza stir over. It's already been litigated

Adler vs. Livak 1998 NJ Superior Court Appellate Division

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bucndoe

[Stugots]

Check your spam emails. Mine went there and I know of someone else too

[thefirstndsecond]

7 hours ago, Bucndoe said:

Over and over again it has been stated here and by case law that the 30 and 60 days are not a hard number to hang your hat on and cause a shyzza stir over. It's already been litigated

Adler vs. Livak 1998 NJ Superior Court Appellate Division

That was before bruin and during may issue.

There should be a hard number. What other rights are delayed and not accounted for?

[Bucndoe]

1 hour ago, thefirstndsecond said:

That was before bruin and during may issue.

There should be a hard number. What other rights are delayed and not accounted for?

It doesn't matter. Bruen was a different issue. All that changed was the removal of "justafiable need".

The NJ ruling in Adler was a unanimous decision with no room for appeal. Like it or not it is settled law

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bucndoe

[mazzgolf]

Here's the Adler ruling - I suggest people read it; it explains why the state of NJ can legally delay your application past the statutory limit of 30 days:

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/1998/a4878-96-opn.html

I hate this ruling but, as said, it is settled law. The only way to change this is for the state legislature to re-word the statute (good luck with that). SCOTUS won't get involved in this, I don't think.

The crux of the decision, as I read it, was this (note: the case was about a delayed FID card, but is equally applicable to handgun permits and carry permits, I'm sure):

Quote

The chief of police is required to "grant . . . the identification card . . . within [thirty] days from the date of receipt of the application," "unless good cause for the denial thereof appears.". . .

We stress that the phrase "good cause for the denial" is not defined in the statutes. The clear implication is that "good cause for the denial" of a permit need not be grounded only in the statutory "disabilities" listed in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(1) through (6).  . . .

We thus conclude that the inability of the chief of police to obtain the requisite SBI and FBI reports within the thirty day period constitutes "good cause" for a denial, but does not require the chief of police to deny the application on that account. He must withhold rendering a decision . . .

In other words, because "good cause for denial" is not defined in the statute itself, the court claims that phrase is not limited just to the disabilities listed in the statute -- it could be anything that reasonably prohibits the chief from making a determination one way or the other. In the case of Adler, the reason the application was delayed past 30 days was because the chief didn't get the applicant's FBI fingerprint report within 30 days. But the court clearly didn't limit their ruling to just that (FBI reports being delayed).  They make it clear "good cause for the denial" can be anything that reasonably causes the chief to be unable to determine if a good cause for denying you exists. For example, if the computers went down for a month and the chief has no other way to access criminal records. Or if, as is the case today, the system is flooded with applications, and the manpower needed to process all of the applications isn't there to process them all within the 30 day limit. Anything that reasonably delays the chief's ability to make a determination of whether or not you have a "good cause for denial" is itself a good cause for denial, and the chief is allowed to delay giving you your permit even past 30 days. And the time limit is unlimited - the court places no hard time limit. If it takes the chief 12 months before he gets your fingerprint reports, so be it. You have no recourse. You have to wait. (I can attest to this personally - it took me about 7 or so months back in '99 (just a year after this ruling) to get my FID card).

That's how I read the ruling.

As the court ruling implies, in order to change this, we need the legislature to re-word the statute (e.g. strictly define "good cause for the denial") in such a way as to negate this court ruling. And, as I say, good luck with that.

(NOTE: this doesn't mean the chief can arbitrarily just delay. He can't, for example, say, "I'm only going to sign off on one permit application per day". That is not a "good cause for denial" as defined by the court. He does, after all, need a "good cause" for denial not an arbitrary cause (e.g. "I don't want to do it").