NJ now has a reasonable concealed carry proficiency test

[Miami_JBT]

Back in July New Jersey implemented a draconian proficiency test for concealed carry.

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) took steps to put the test in front of the Federal Judge who earlier found much of New Jersey's "sensitive places" violated the 2A.

On September 15 the NJ Attorney General announced a new set of rules that deleted 25 yards and timed draw/shoot. The new set of requirements are 10 shots each at 3, 5, 7, 10 and 15 yards (With a passing score of 40 out of 50 on an FBI Q target) and only require basic proficiency in safely drawing and holstering a loaded weapon.

https://www.nj.gov/njsp/firearms/pdf/CCARE_Protocol.pdf

It can be argued(someplace else please) that any proficiency test violates the 2A. But I for one find the new test qualifies as reasonable.

Let's apply your train of thought to the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

To exercise the 1st, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency in the Bible. You need to quote a minimum of four verses and note their proper location in the good book.

To exercise the 4th, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency in explaining to law enforcement the difference between open fields and curtilage

To exercise the 5th, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency the courts that you can differentiate self-incrimination, hearsay, and corroboration.

These "new test qualifies as reasonable."

 

[bushmaster1313]

Let's apply your train of thought to the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

To exercise the 1st, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency in the Bible. You need to quote a minimum of four verses and note their proper location in the good book.

To exercise the 4th, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency in explaining to law enforcement the difference between open fields and curtilage

To exercise the 5th, you need to take a reasonable test showing proficiency the courts that you can differentiate self-incrimination, hearsay, and corroboration.

These "new test qualifies as reasonable."

I did not want this thread to be about whether reasonable carry permit regulations pass muster under the Constitution. So I will not directly respond.

However, on further reflection, I believe that in order for the New Jersey qualification requirement to be reasonable and fair, an applicant with a disability needs to have an alternative mechanism to show that they are able to carry a weapon outside the home without being a danger to others.

 

[adwjc]

I did not want this thread to be about whether reasonable carry permit regulations pass muster under the Constitution. So I will not directly respond.

However, on further reflection, I believe that in order for the New Jersey qualification requirement to be reasonable and fair, an applicant with a disability needs to have an alternative mechanism to show that they are able to carry a weapon outside the home without being a danger to others.

Calling these requirements "reasonable" is basically drinking the Murphy/Platkin Kool-Aid.

Why should a civilian have to qualify to the standards required for Police Officers?

If they do, why should they be bound by all the ridiculous restrictions that are imposed upon licensees (gun free zones, sensitive areas, no hollow points, magazine limits, etc) that police are specifically exempted from?

 

[vt_shooter]

I understand both sides of the testing requirement. I also would prefer that neither me nor a family member gets shot by an errant bullet fired by an incompetent person that was trying to hit someone that needed to be hit. Not being able to achieve the new NJ competency requirement would clearly put someone in the "needs improvement" category, in my view. We should keep in mind that new competency requirement is intended for people that carry outside of the home, in the same space the rest of us who don't want to catch an errant bullet inhabit. People that carry should want to be competent.

 

[rosewood]

I understand both sides of the testing requirement. I also would prefer that neither me nor a family member gets shot by an errant bullet fired by an incompetent person that was trying to hit someone that needed to be hit. Not being able to achieve the new NJ competency requirement would clearly put someone in the "needs improvement" category, in my view. We should keep in mind that new competency requirement is intended for people that carry outside of the home, in the same space the rest of us who don't want to catch an errant bullet inhabit. People that carry should want to be competent.

I totally see your point, but I bet you check the stats, this is more common with police officers than civilians and at that, still a rare occurrence. How many cases have you seen where an errant bullet (by a person defending themself, not a gang bang shooting) hit an innocent bystander?

Rosewood

 

[rosewood]

Literacy tests for being able to vote were outlawed decades ago. The reason was that they were used in many southern states to keep black people from being able to vote.

Arguably, the exact same issue exists with firearms training requirements.

I took the SC required course a few years ago when my son and I were thinking about buying some investment property. Non SC residents can get a SC permit if they own land in the state. The course wasn't challenging at all. I also have a RI permit and that range qualification is also pretty simple.

I'm not aware that SC has eliminated their permit requirements, but it will soon be moot for me. Once we are settled in TX, I intend to get a TX LTC which SC recognizes. TX also requires a class, including range qualification.

In principle I'm against range qualification requirements for the exact reason that NJ made them as difficult as possible. It's no different than states that are trying to impose absurdly high fees and taxes in order to make it very expensive to own guns. That too was used to discourage poor people from voting in the south.

I agree, most of the gun laws affect the poor man more than anyone else. Buying a suppressor for instance can only be afforded by someone with a few hundred dollars to spare. Most poorer folks cannot afford one. That argument is never used in defending ownership for some reason.

Is this a subtle way that our government officials are implying well off people are less likely to commit a crime?

Back in the day, the literacy test was no doubt a racist creation to restrict those that vote. But today, if you can't read, it is your own fault. Everyone has the opportunity to do so and they supposedly teach Civics in High School. No reason each and every voter shouldn't understand the basics on how our government works.

Rosewood

 

[BSA1]

However, on further reflection, I believe that in order for the New Jersey qualification requirement to be reasonable and fair, an applicant with a disability needs to have an alternative mechanism to show that they are able to carry a weapon outside the home without being a danger to others.

I am making the assumption that you consider this requirement to be fair because you can pass it. How would you feel if you could only shoot a 75% score?

 

[BSA1]

I understand both sides of the testing requirement. I also would prefer that neither me nor a family member gets shot by an errant bullet fired by an incompetent person that was trying to hit someone that needed to be hit. Not being able to achieve the new NJ competency requirement would clearly put someone in the "needs improvement" category, in my view. We should keep in mind that new competency requirement is intended for people that carry outside of the home, in the same space the rest of us who don't want to catch an errant bullet inhabit. People that carry should want to be competent.

What documentation or statistics do you have that show innocent bystanders have been hit by a errant shot(s) fired by a CITIZEN in a legally justified self-defense situation?

Same question for LEO's (Police/Sheriff//Other). Have you researched documentation or statistics for how many innocent bystanders have been hit by errant shot(s) fired by LEO's?
(Hint I expect it to be higher than those fired by citizens despite a LEO higher level of training).

Finally how many innocent bystanders have been hit by errant bullets fired ILLEGALLY by offenders during a commission of a crime? Most typically as a result of multiple bullets fired in a drive-by shooting by gang members?
(Hint this number will be majority of incidents).

Research over the decades have proved time and time again that when under extreme stress from being shot at LEO's forget the basics of accurate shooting and also lose count of the number of rounds they have fired meaning errant shots going down range.

If LEO's forget the basics of shooting despite their high level of training what kind of training should a CITIZEN have to be granted the privilege by the Government to carry a concealed carry license? Training at a facility like Gunsite is expensive and out of the budget for many people.

What your position is only elite citizens chosen by the Government should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[GaryS]

Do think that criminals should have to show proficiency before they can carry firearms outside their homes? Or is it okay if a stray bullet from one of them kills you?

Which, based on my experience in EMS in an urban system is far more likely to happen.

I understand both sides of the testing requirement. I also would prefer that neither me nor a family member gets shot by an errant bullet fired by an incompetent person that was trying to hit someone that needed to be hit. Not being able to achieve the new NJ competency requirement would clearly put someone in the "needs improvement" category, in my view. We should keep in mind that new competency requirement is intended for people that carry outside of the home, in the same space the rest of us who don't want to catch an errant bullet inhabit. People that carry should want to be competent.

 

[GaryS]

From a purest purposes, there should be no cost for permits if required. Nor should firearm, ammunition, or cleaning equipment be taxed.

As to civics, I don't know how much is taught, but since it's not included in standardized tests needed to graduate, it doesn't matter. At that, given the leanings of school administrators and faculty, it would be better if it weren't taught.

For that matter given the poor reading and writing skills and complete lack of math skills I see, I'm not sure that anything is taught in many schools.

I know so many current and retired teachers that I consider myself the Mona Lisa Vito of teachers. I know a lot of what goes on in public schools.

But I digress.

I agree, most of the gun laws affect the poor man more than anyone else. Buying a suppressor for instance can only be afforded by someone with a few hundred dollars to spare. Most poorer folks cannot afford one. That argument is never used in defending ownership for some reason.

Is this a subtle way that our government officials are implying well off people are less likely to commit a crime?

Back in the day, the literacy test was no doubt a racist creation to restrict those that vote. But today, if you can't read, it is your own fault. Everyone has the opportunity to do so and they supposedly teach Civics in High School. No reason each and every voter shouldn't understand the basics on how our government works.

Rosewood

 

[Well Armed]

I understand both sides of the testing requirement. I also would prefer that neither me nor a family member gets shot by an errant bullet fired by an incompetent person that was trying to hit someone that needed to be hit.

It can be argued(someplace else please) that any proficiency test violates the 2A. But I for one find the new test qualifies as reasonable.

It's not an argument that it violates the 2A. It does violate the 2A. They put those requirements there purposely to make it harder and more expensive for many to exercise their rights. Of course you find it "reasonable" because you're not one of the people who are being affected. Kind of reminds me of how Springfield Arms was against an Illinois gun control measure until that measure affected everyone else but them.

Everyone in free states have to realize that many from liberal states and cities will be liberal minded, groomed, and indoctrinated to believe one way. You can't be surrounded by and hear certain propaganda regularly throughout your life, and it not rub off on you. It's usually New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, etc liberal state gun owners who agree with some, not all, "common sense gun control" and some infringes that would be unheard of if applied to any other constitutional rights. Then you'll have people like @vt_shooter who spew antigun and Moms Demand Action propaganda almost word for word relating to innocent people and bystander being shot by law abiding citizens.They don't care that the facts don't back their fear mongering up, that the majority of states in the country don't have any training requirements, that millions of lawful citizens in the aforementioned states carry everyday, and there's no evidence of an epidemic of them accidently hitting all these innocent bystanders! Facts don't matter as much as their feelings that stem from them being influenced to think a particular way by the their antigun surrounding.

Notice that the two members who think the NJ scheme with regards to training are "reasonable" are both from regions of the country that have been hostile to the 2A. That's a common trend and not a coincidence.

 

[Miami_JBT]

From a purest purposes, there should be no cost for permits if required. Nor should firearm, ammunition, or cleaning equipment be taxed.

As to civics, I don't know how much is taught, but since it's not included in standardized tests needed to graduate, it doesn't matter. At that, given the leanings of school administrators and faculty, it would be better if it weren't taught.

For that matter given the poor reading and writing skills and complete lack of math skills I see, I'm not sure that anything is taught in many schools.

I know so many current and retired teachers that I consider myself the Mona Lisa Vito of teachers. I know a lot of what goes on in public schools.

But I digress.

From a purest purposes, there should be no permit required, PERIOD.

This is a civil right we're discussing. Not a privilege. Remember, privileges can be granted by government and taken away by government. Rights are inalienable.

 

[Miami_JBT]

It's not an argument that it violates the 2A. It does violate the 2A. They put those requirements there purposely to make it harder and more expensive for many to exercise their rights. Of course you find it "reasonable" because you're not one of the people who are being affected. Kind of reminds me of how Springfield Arms was against an Illinois gun control measure until that measure affected everyone else but them.

Everyone in free states have to realize that many from liberal states and cities will be liberal minded, groomed, and indoctrinated to believe one way. You can't be surrounded by and hear certain propaganda regularly throughout your life, and it not rub off on you. It's usually New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, etc liberal state gun owners who agree with some, not all, "common sense gun control" and some infringes that would be unheard of if applied to any other constitutional rights. Then you'll have people like @vt_shooter who spew antigun and
Moms Demand Action propaganda almost word for word relating to innocent people and bystander being shot by law abiding citizens.They don't care that the facts don't back their fear mongering up, that the majority of states in the country don't have any training requirements, that millions of lawful citizens in the aforementioned states carry everyday, and there's no evidence of them accidently hitting all these innocent bystanders! Facts don't matter as much as their feelings that stem from them being influenced to think a particular way by the their antigun surrounding.

Notice that the two members who think the NJ scheme with regards to training are "reasonable" are both from regions of the country that have been hostile to the 2A. That's a common trend and not a coincidence.

My family fled Communist Cuba and settled in Florida and New Jersey. Florida at one time was draconian too when it came to recognizing the Second Amendment. You needed a permit to own and a permit to carry in Dade County and it was may-issue prior to 1987. Sadly, New Jersey is still trying to cling to the old ways and expand it.

As the son of Cuban Immigrants that fled Communism.

NOTHING IS REASONABLE WHEN IT COMES TO CIVIL RIGHTS.

 

[Well Armed]

From a purest purposes, there should be no permit required, PERIOD.

This is a civil right we're discussing. Not a privilege. Remember, privileges can be granted by government and taken away by government. Rights are inalienable.

Well at least half the states in the country now transitioned to permitless carry. That's a start and a good trend even though, sadly, some gun owners were against it. They all had the usual fear mongering about how there will be blood in the streets and innocent bystanders being killed. Then the law goes into affect, and nothing happens all changes.

 

[Well Armed]

My family fled Communist Cuba and settled in Florida and New Jersey. Florida at one time was draconian too when it came to recognizing the Second Amendment. You needed a permit to own and a permit to carry in Dade County and it was may-issue prior to 1987. Sadly, New Jersey is still trying to cling to the old ways and expand it.

As the son of Cuban Immigrants that fled Communism.

NOTHING IS REASONABLE WHEN IT COMES TO CIVIL RIGHTS.

Yes, we realize that. For many gun owners though, they'll see things as being "reasonable" when it's no skin off their teeth and doesn't really hurt or affect them any. For example, when the NJ training requirements affected the OP, he seen them as being unreasonable. When the standards were lowered to a height he personal finds acceptable, he suddenly believed the requirements are "reasonable" even though they might keep others who can't afford the classes or who might not 100% meet the standards from being about to exercise a constitutional right.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Well at least half the states in the country now transitioned to permitless carry. That's a start and a good trend even though, sadly, some gun owners were against it. They all had the usual fear mongering about how there will be blood in the streets and innocent bystanders being killed. Then the law goes into affect, and nothing happens all changes.

In Florida, it was Republicans who were against passing permitless carry. A lot of Florida's Republicans are former Blue Dog Democrats that believe gun ownership should be controlled since they don't want minorities being armed and also think gun ownership means a SxS for hunting qual.

Heck, we don't even have the right to carry guns even with permitless carry. The State Supreme Court ruled in Norman v. State (2017) that possession of a gun under FL law is only an affirmative defense.

 

[vt_shooter]

Then you'll have people like @vt_shooter who spew antigun and Moms Demand Action propaganda almost word for word relating to innocent people and bystander being shot by law abiding citizens.

You're missing my point and spewing nonsense. My main point is concealed carriers should want to be competent. For a multitude of reasons. Are you competent? Could you go to a range and score the 80% that their test requires? Because if you can't, you're not in the least bit competent. And it does not have to cost a pile of money to become a little competent - there is plenty of instructional materials out there that is free. A little competence might go a long way to keeping you alive and out of legal jeopardy.

 

[Rule3]

Meanwhile Florida did a away with CC permits. Anyone (not a prohibitive person)can carry a gun now
Heck all the convicted felons do it.
All the CC is good for is eliminates a 3 day wait if you buy a gun

 

[bushmaster1313]

I am making the assumption that you consider this requirement to be fair because you can pass it. How would you feel if you could only shoot a 75% score?

This was the real point of my OP:

To alert NJ residents that the test has gotten much easier and to solicit comments from the Forum as to whether the test is in fact reasonable. Not whether it passed Constitutional muster.

Also, please note one of my other posts where I say that persons with a disability need to have an alternative method of showing they can carry outside the home without being a danger to others.

 

[Bald1]

I agree with the notion that, ASSUMING YOU BELIEVE A PROFICENCY TEST IS REASONABLE, that test is reasonable. For what my opinion might be worth to you.

It is not. Never has been. Never will be. Lets not confuse a drivers license with a constitutional right.