Almost 90 days since handgun permit submission

[hostak126]

10 hours ago, Farmshine said:

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.  

I'm waiting on my NICS check to come back, I have a Macro on layaway

[vdep217]

4 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

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):

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").

I believe at some point scotus will rule on new jersey permitting system.  It's redundant and causes us to pay multiple times for a check for one gun.  Maybe I'm being over confidant

[Haskell_Hunter]

7 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

I believe at some point scotus will rule on new jersey permitting system.  It's redundant and causes us to pay multiple times for a check for one gun.  Maybe I'm being over confidant

SCOTUS won't wade into this.  It's not constitutional enough.

[Bucndoe]

4 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

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):

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").

Good cause for denial is any of the disqualifiers spelled out in statute.

The simple crux of the ruling is the statutory clock doesn't start ticking until the issuing agency has everything they need to process the application and start its investigation.

Complaints about delays statewide led to the NJ Attorney General Directive 2016-4. That is the  Law Enforcement Statewide Directive Concerning Uniform Practices And Procedures For Firearms Permits. That NJ AG directive led to the creation and implementation of the FARS System

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bucndoe

[Bucndoe]

45 minutes ago, vdep217 said:

I believe at some point scotus will rule on new jersey permitting system.  It's redundant and causes us to pay multiple times for a check for one gun.  Maybe I'm being over confidant

To give a quick civics lesson, it all must start with lawsuit filed in Superior Court that has merit to get heard. It then would have to go through all appeal layers first. 

The Supreme Court doesn't just step in to local state matters on their own. I respect your passion but it just doesn't happen that way.

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bucndoe

[thefirstndsecond]

There is a case in PA right now about delays when purchasing a firearm because of the state. The gist is the state needs to provide adequate staffing because of the sales issue and not just impact to individual.

but we have PICS which is a state issue.

the reason I was talking about bruin was not about the justifiable need, it is also about the tradition of law, intent of 2a, there was more than justifiable need.

bruin is now also possibly effecting magazine capacity, where you can carry, and a few other things.

 

INAL and you may be right about the statute but things have changed from a realm of just purchasing to an expression of the right to carry and self defense.

There is much more litigation coming.

One can only hope.

 

Buckndoe thank you for your patience and knowledge.

[mazzgolf]

Quote

Complaints about delays statewide led to the NJ Attorney General Directive 2016-4

Interesting... here is that directive (this was issued during the  Christie administration - I wonder if a Democrat would have ever issued such a directive):

https://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/agguide/directives/2016-4_Permits-to-Carry-Firearms_Directive.pdf

One thing I found interesting is this:

"Upon inquiry by an applicant regarding the status of an application, the licensing authority shall explain to the applicant the status of any outstanding items or issues regarding the pending application."

So by this directive they make it clear that you have the right to inquire about the status of your application, and they must tell you what they are waiting on or what the issues are that are causing a delay. So if you are going over 30 days waiting, don't feel bad by calling them and asking them what's going on - it is your right, so they should not have an issue with you asking, and they have to tell you what the specific problem(s) are that is causing the delay for your specific application.

Quote

Good cause for denial is any of the disqualifiers spelled out in statute.

Adler states explicitly:

"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" . . ."

So "good cause for denial" is more than any of the disqualifiers spelled out in the statute (according to these judges). They say it also includes any other reasonable reason that causes the chief to be unable to make a determination (in this case, for example, not having the FBI fingerprint report). As they say in the ruling, "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"

"The inability of the chief of police to obtain the requisite SBI and FBI reports" isn't listed in the statutes as a disqualifier, but yet here the court simply added that to the definition of "good cause for denial" because the legislature didn't explicitly define the term in the statute; so the court felt at liberty to add their own meaning to the term. Can we say "activist judges"?

[Bucndoe]

24 minutes ago, mazzgolf said:

Interesting... here is that directive (this was issued during the  Christie administration - I wonder if a Democrat would have ever issued such a directive):

https://www.nj.gov/lps/dcj/agguide/directives/2016-4_Permits-to-Carry-Firearms_Directive.pdf

One thing I found interesting is this:

"Upon inquiry by an applicant regarding the status of an application, the licensing authority shall explain to the applicant the status of any outstanding items or issues regarding the pending application."

So by this directive they make it clear that you have the right to inquire about the status of your application, and they must tell you what they are waiting on or what the issues are that are causing a delay. So if you are going over 30 days waiting, don't feel bad by calling them and asking them what's going on - it is your right, so they should not have an issue with you asking, and they have to tell you what the specific problem(s) are that is causing the delay for your specific application.

Adler states explicitly:

"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" . . ."

So "good cause for denial" is more than any of the disqualifiers spelled out in the statute (according to these judges). They say it also includes any other reasonable reason that causes the chief to be unable to make a determination (in this case, for example, not having the FBI fingerprint report). As they say in the ruling, "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"

"The inability of the chief of police to obtain the requisite SBI and FBI reports" isn't listed in the statutes as a disqualifier, but yet here the court simply added that to the definition of "good cause for denial" because the legislature didn't explicitly define the term in the statute; so the court felt at liberty to add their own meaning to the term. Can we say "activist judges"?

Correct, with the catch all disability being “in any situation where the issuance would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare”, which is in statute, is extremely broad, and not defined. However, it is clearly one of the disabilities.

So again, that is or can be a disqualifier, AND is in statute. What isn’t in the statute is exactly what that is or isn’t. The good cause would be determined by a Superior Court Judge in the hearing of a denial appeal. I am very familiar with the Adler ruling and it’s application

Your chasing your tail on this one

Edited September 23, 2022 by Bucndoe

[Bucndoe]

18 hours ago, mazzgolf said:

 

Adler states explicitly:

"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"

 

Also, read the last sentence. "He MUST withhold rendering a decision." The timeframe doesn't start until he/she gets all that they need to render that decision. The application is pending until that decision is made.

[VFL]

Got an email on Thursday about my permit. Not sure if this is true or legal but this is what I was told in the email and in person at town hall:

 

“Bergen County has informed us that we can now go forward with firearms applications……”

 

Didn’t know the county was involved. Also, how is the county allowed to hold the firearms applications?

[Bucndoe]

39 minutes ago, VFL said:

Got an email on Thursday about my permit. Not sure if this is true or legal but this is what I was told in the email and in person at town hall:

 

“Bergen County has informed us that we can now go forward with firearms applications……”

 

Didn’t know the county was involved. Also, how is the county allowed to hold the firearms applications?

Yes, it is/was true. I posted about this in a Carry Permit thread. After the FID law changed and went into effect July 5th 2022, the Bergen County Prosecutor issued a directive to Bergen County agencies not to process any new FID, Change of Address, name, gender etc applications until the NJSP updated the new guidelines in FARS. Any repeat handgun applications, carry permit applications, etc could continue. 

Bergen was the only county doing that and the NJSP and Attorney General stepped in and told them they were incorrect and violating residents Constitutional Rights which led to Bergen County rescinding the directive. Bergen County ended up pissing in the wrong cup of coffee.

Any new FID card issued after July 5 2022, including name change, lost/stolen/mutilated, address change comes with a 10 year expiration. The new law also requires a safety course as a prerequisite to obtain. The NJSP was adding a Power Point to the FARS system that must be completed by the applicant during the application filing process. Therefore there is no additional cost to the applicant to take a safety course or provide proof, it will be in the FARS system attached to the resident's application.

Edited September 24, 2022 by Bucndoe

[Bucndoe]

44 minutes ago, VFL said:

Got an email on Thursday about my permit. Not sure if this is true or legal but this is what I was told in the email and in person at town hall:

 

“Bergen County has informed us that we can now go forward with firearms applications……”

 

Didn’t know the county was involved. Also, how is the county allowed to hold the firearms applications?

I Posted this on September 9 in a different thread about carry permits and Court hearings

This is the current situation,

The conundrum right now is that not all 21 counties are uniformly issuing these in the same manner. Hopefully all of them get on board together but government moves like molasses on a 30 degree day. It is an absolute free for all right now and seems like a race for people with no sense of direction. The AG and NJSP is getting as much info and guidance out to them as possible, but if they are given room to do as they wish they usually do.

The statute itself doesn't dictate between open or concealed carry with the carry permit. Judges may put their own restrictions on the permits (which is done through the Court Order that needs to carried with permits), but the statute itself doesn't say it's concealed carry. So, to clarify for NJ, the permit is a Carry Permit not a CCW Permit. It was always referred that way because of the restrictions the judges put on it which didn't permit unlimited open carry.

Some county's Judge's are having it locked in the trunk, other county Judges are saying no restrictions and open carry is allowed. Depending on which county you reside in is going to dictate what you get as far as restrictions.

AND, 

Since the FID requirements statute was amended in July, some agencies have those new applications completely on hold and aren't even processing them.

However, there is a bit of good news. The NJSP will have a Training Course uploaded into the FARS system hopefully by next week  to satisfy the newly amended training requirement for the issuance of the FID Card so no NJ resident will have to unduly be burdened by paying for one. It will be done during the filing of the application.

Edited September 10 by Bucndoe

Edited September 24, 2022 by Bucndoe

[DJ0808]

 Curious with regards to the part about carrying court order along with permit to carry. Do you have to carry it on the normal letter/legal size paper they print it on, or can you scan and shrink down to fit on a 3 x 5 or similar size piece of paper that can be laminated and carried much easier?

 

[Bucndoe]

1 hour ago, DJ0808 said:

 Curious with regards to the part about carrying court order along with permit to carry. Do you have to carry it on the normal letter/legal size paper they print it on, or can you scan and shrink down to fit on a 3 x 5 or similar size piece of paper that can be laminated and carried much easier?

 

Don't be lazy. Make a copy and keep it with you. It ain't that hard

[thefirstndsecond]

4 hours ago, Bucndoe said:

I Posted this on September 9 in a different thread about carry permits and Court hearings

This is the current situation,

The conundrum right now is that not all 21 counties are uniformly issuing these in the same manner. Hopefully all of them get on board together but government moves like molasses on a 30 degree day. It is an absolute free for all right now and seems like a race for people with no sense of direction. The AG and NJSP is getting as much info and guidance out to them as possible, but if they are given room to do as they wish they usually do.

The statute itself doesn't dictate between open or concealed carry with the carry permit. Judges may put their own restrictions on the permits (which is done through the Court Order that needs to carried with permits), but the statute itself doesn't say it's concealed carry. So, to clarify for NJ, the permit is a Carry Permit not a CCW Permit. It was always referred that way because of the restrictions the judges put on it which didn't permit unlimited open carry.

Some county's Judge's are having it locked in the trunk, other county Judges are saying no restrictions and open carry is allowed. Depending on which county you reside in is going to dictate what you get as far as restrictions.

AND, 

Since the FID requirements statute was amended in July, some agencies have those new applications completely on hold and aren't even processing them.

However, there is a bit of good news. The NJSP will have a Training Course uploaded into the FARS system hopefully by next week  to satisfy the newly amended training requirement for the issuance of the FID Card so no NJ resident will have to unduly be burdened by paying for one. It will be done during the filing of the application.

Edited September 10 by Bucndoe

This is going to cause issues because each citizen of a different county will have different rights even though they live in the same state. Hopefully this will get ironed out. Having different laws per county or per individual from a different county is a nightmare and is an undo burden on the citizens for expressing their right to carry.

Sounds like more litigation. This is happening around states all the time that do not have preemption and each twp, county makes firearm law. This definitely causes issues with tradition of the second amendment and the historical references needed. I would imagine capacity will come into play as well. It already has in some states.