NJ now has a reasonable concealed carry proficiency test

[bushmaster1313]

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.

 

[Well Armed]

I don't find it reasonable AT ALL. I fail to understand how anyone who supports the constitution could, but YMMV. The majority of states have no such provision and about have the states have universal carry, and the millions of legal gun owners have not being going around shooting innocent bystanders by accident. The goal of those provision are and always was to make obtaining a permission slip as costly and as tedious as possible.

 

[Racer X]

no requirements to prove you aren't a moron before you vote, or that you will be a good parent.

But they made concessions, and that is a good thing. The only way requirements will stop is when SCOTUS specifically rules on them, and most importantly, lawmakers get punished for civil rights violations.

 

[bushmaster1313]

I am trying not to argue whether having requirements at all passes Constitutional must.

 

[VictorLouis]

The only way requirements will stop is when SCOTUS specifically rules on them,,,,,

and ,,,lawmakers get punished for civil rights violations.

A court, Thee Court, can rule "Shall...." on whatever. However, without any clear-cut, delineated "OR-ELSE"....the Gubmint reps can sit on their butts without fear of repercussion.

 

[robertrwalsh]

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.

 

[rwsmith]

South Carolina had......

South Carolina had a shooting requirement, but it's a piece of cake. It seems they eliminated the permit altogether in Feb, 2023 but I just took the test a few months ago and had to do the written and shooting test. I don't know if the new rule hadn't gone into effect, but I'm glad I did the test. Now if they'll just send my my card. My wife has had hers about a week.

 

[dockmurgw]

Any test of any kind still qualifies as draconian.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I don't find it reasonable AT ALL. I fail to understand how anyone who supports the constitution could, but YMMV. The majority of states have no such provision and about have the states have universal carry, and the millions of legal gun owners have not being going around shooting innocent bystanders by accident. The goal of those provision are and always was to make obtaining a permission slip as costly and as tedious as possible.

I happen to be strongly in favor of training, but that's just my opinion. I am not in favor of state-mandated training as a prerequisite of "granting" Constitutional rights.

Meanwhile, I believe that the facts stated in the last two sentences of the quoted post are incontrovertible, and dictate an obvious conclusion.

 

[rosewood]

Funny, the same politicians that support training to carry a firearm do not support a test of any kind to be able to vote. Educated folks would vote differently than non-educated ones.

Rosewood

 

[BSA1]

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.

But I for one find the new test qualifies as reasonable.

40 out of 50 means a 80% passing score.

What is the passing score for your local Police, Sheriff Officers and State Police Officers?

 

[pharmer]

I happen to be strongly in favor of training, but that's just my opinion. I am not in favor of state-mandated training as a prerequisite of "granting" Constitutional rights....

There's the gnarly bit. I agree. Joe

 

[pantannojack]

no requirements to prove you aren't a moron before you vote, or that you will be a good parent.

But they made concessions, and that is a good thing. The only way requirements will stop is when SCOTUS specifically rules on them, and most importantly, lawmakers get punished for civil rights violations.

What punishment?

 

[rosewood]

What punishment?

There should be jail time for willful violations.

 

[ladder13]

What about the sensitive places part?

 

[GaryS]

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.

Funny, the same politicians that support training to carry a firearm do not support a test of any kind to be able to vote. Educated folks would vote differently than non-educated ones.

Rosewood

 

[bushmaster1313]

What about the sensitive places part?

The district Judge issued a preliminary injunction against the most egregious of the sensitive place restrictions. The Third Circuit reinstated some of the sensitive places for now and is hearing the appeal of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.

 

[Telecaster]

It’s a reasonable test, but an unreasonable law.

 

[GaryS]

South Carolina legislature adjourned until next year, but the bills to make it a Constitutional Carry state are still alive.

NRA-ILA | South Carolina: 2023 Session Informally Adjourns, Constitutional Carry Still Alive

The South Carolina 2023 legislative session has informally adjourned without a sine die resolution and has no plans to return this calendar year. Despite the adjournment, both NRA-backed Constitutional Carry bills, S. 109 and H. 3594 are still alive and will be pending on the Senate floor when the legislature returns in January 2024.

As a reminder, H. 3594 received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, as well as the backing of Governor McMaster. In the Senate, S. 109 was amended to adopt the NRA's preferred language, resulting in two legislative opportunities to move forward in January. There is a strong chance that constitutional carry will be among the first bills considered when the legislative session resumes in January 2024.

 

[jbull380]

No such thing.