New Jersey CCW shoot requirements are stuipd (and probably unconstitutional) but not hard

I saw this article online:

Deep Dive: New Jersey’s new ‘John Wick’ concealed-carry qualification test

That’s a heck of a headline, how bad is it.

After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Bruen Decision, which obliterated most state restrictions on the public carrying of arms and changed forever how lower courts should decide Second Amendment-related challenges to anti-gun regulations, many blue states seemingly tried to outdo each other with the number of unconstitutional post-Bruen tantrum laws they could pass. At this, New Jersey certainly lead the way, especially for its residents seeking to carry a defensive firearm.

Obtaining a New Jersey permit to carry was never easy. It is not easy now. Instead, it remains an expensive multi-step nightmare specifically designed to make the process as difficult as possible for the applicant.

Now, not only must New Jersians bend a knee, pay a fee and beg permission from the Crown to buy back their constitutional rights, they must also pass a difficult shooting test that was designed for police, not civilians, to prove they’re capable of exercising their constitutional rights to the government’s satisfaction.

Last month, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police in conjunction with the state’s Attorney General, issued new requirements titled “Use of Force Interim Training for Private Citizen Concealed Carry.” The document contains written material for in-person classroom training as well as the requirements for an arduous 50-round qualification course that every concealed-carry applicant must pass.

If there is one thing I know about cops in Blue states, it’s that they are totalitarian fascists.

If there are two things I know about cops in Blue states, it’s that they are totalitarian fascists and they can’t shoot for shit.

So if New Jersey civilians have to shoot as well as New Jersey cops, this can’t be all that difficult.

This is from the Use of Force Interim Training for Private Citizen Concealed Carry.

I’ll be the first to acknowledge that us tougher than the Nebraska or Illinois CCW qualifications.  Illinois requires 50 rounds snd goes to 10 yards.  Nebraska requires 30 rounds, and only go out to 7 yards.  Neither require kneeling.  Illinois and Nebraska require drawing from a holster.

I absolutely agree that the New Jersey CCW requirement is much tougher than any other state requirement (so far).  I think it’s a valid argument to say that people defending themselves with a CCW gun rarely do it past five yards, and requiring 25 yard hits is well beyond what they might expect in a CCW situation.

The onerousness is probably unconstitutional.

But let’s be honest, for an experienced shooter, that’s not hard to do.

This was me at 25 yards with 30 rounds (two mags) with my P320 compact.

 

The center circle is eight inches in diameter.  That’s probably a 4×6 inch group.

A Q target is 12 inches wide by 26 inches tall.

This is a Q target overlaid on top of a B-27 for scale.

 

I bet every IDPA club in New Jersey would set this up as stages.

My point is: although this is tougher than other states, it’s not an impossibly difficult standard with training to achieve.

Yes, it should be made more reasonable for CCW, but don’t panic and say you have to be John Wick to pass it.  No New Jersey cop is John Wick.

There is part of me that wants to lean into this.

The anti-gun Left loves to say that civilians don’t have the gun experience of police.

That’s a load of bullshit, but, if civilians meet the same qualifications as the police then there is nothing the anti-guners can say within reason.

If I meet all the same standards as the police, I should be able to carry all the same places as the police, so nowhere in New Jersey should be a prohibited place that isn’t designated one by federal law.

 

Spread the love

I know I have been harping about health…

…but I am still getting shocked about people simply ignoring shit that will kill them. I was told by somebody (in what I am afraid was a voice with a touch of pride/defiance) that he managed had to be taken to the hospital with a blood sugar level just below 1,000.

I blinked hard and bit down my tongue because the individual is a junkie for sweets, and it is not unusual to see him chomping on a pastry or similar. And yes, he is morbidly overweight and breathes with exertion by just breathing. and I know of at least another case similar to his and behaving pretty much in the same manner.

But what really pisses me of is that these people are heading for an early grave through a long hospital stay in which they will bemoan the lack of empathy by me and others… and they would be right. I lived an unhealthy live for almost half my live, but I sort of hit the bottom of the barrel and got a warning serious enough that I decided to improve my health. So, I don’t care if you also lived mainlining Cheetos and twinkies up your arm, if you want to change and truly give it an effort, I can support and applaud you with eagerness, even if you fail and have to try again and again.

Surrendering to cupcakes and slushies because it is comfortable and tasty will be your death sentence in the best of cases, but probably you will be condemned for years to a bed, marinating on your own excrement waiting hours for an underpaid nurse technician to stop texting the boyfriend and come wipe your ass.

Take care of yourselves, please.

Spread the love

Brief of United States v. Rahimi, US Supreme Court – UPDATED

B.L.U.F. The United States filed a brief with the Supreme Court where they argue that the definition of “The People” is in the hands of the state. And other reasons why the state gets to decide when the Second Amendment applies.

(3,800 words)


The Question

Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence protective orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Brief of United States, United States v. Rahimi, No. 22-915 (U.S.)

The question is well-formed and well suited to an opinion by the Supreme Court. This is a dangerous gamble for the state. While they are looking at specifically §922(g)(8) there is nothing to keep the Justices from looking at all of §922(g).

If the Justices decide to look at more than just §922(g)(8) they could very well throw out much of the GCA. In addition, it is likely to put a hurting on many other infringements and infringement arguments.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 467 U.S. 837, 2816–17 (2008)

Double emphasis added.

That one sentence is what all infringements hang on since Heller. “Not unlimited” means that the states have been searching for the limit ever since. They will push until a court stops them.

Post Bruen they are losing, but this one sentence is still their foundation.

It is also important to note that Scalia was explicit about “felons and the mentally ill”, but omitted all the other prohibited classifications. This is reading into dicta what was not said. Doing it from our side is just as bad as when the state does it from their side. Though I like to think that the side of the Constitution gets it correct more often than not.

In my opinion, the nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on … was added to this opinion to get the more left—leaning Justices to sign on, in particular, Justice Roberts.

The Statements with Embedded Assumptions

Read More

Spread the love

Why Something Makes it as News

First, my apologies. It’s summer, which is my Very Busy Season. Things will slow down after September. I’m trying to drop this quicker than I normally would, so you have something from me.

***

When you sit down to read a book for fun, would you rather read something like Hammer’s Slammers or Monster Hunters Inc… or a diatribe on the health of oatmeal for breakfast?

I choose books based on whether they have things in them that interest me. I like science fiction, fantasy, some detective things. Sign me up for Heinlein novels, Harry Potter stuff, Sookie Stackhouse and Merry Gentry. I love the Cadfael series. All of these have characters that may have started out seeming normal, but very quickly showed they were not.

That’s because books aren’t written about the normal people. After all, who would read it? It would be boring.

I got up this morning at 7:32am. I read news on my phone for ten minutes while waking up, then stretched for a few minutes, and headed down to make breakfast. I was very tired after a long weekend camping, so I decided to take a nap. I napped for just shy of two hours, and I’m feeling better. I did some paperwork for a company I work for. I made eggs for lunch.

Isn’t that dryer than a popcorn fart? I mean, really.

Read More

Spread the love

On the Lizzie Max thing

It started with this post.

 

Congressman Max Miller responded this way:

 

Now the internet is on fire and there is about to be sectarian violence between Christians and Jews.

Miller may have overreacted, but you need to understand the divide here.

I understand the Christian perspective.  Lizzie was making a statement of faith.

Giving her the benefit of the doubt, it wasn’t malicious.

What Jews, with out thousands of years of faith, tradition, and history of being persecuted for that faith, hear is: “You’re wrong, there is no hope for you l, and you’re going to hell.”

This, however, is the problem with proselytization.  What one side might have said in love and concern for the souls of others, is heard as an attack on their faith, culture, and identity.

We Jews do not proselytize and we take deep offense at being proselytized to.

I’ll be honest, even though I understand what Lizzie is saying and giving her the benefit of the doubt, my reflexive position is that she’s an asshole for saying what she said the way she said it.

Now a very vocal side of the Christian Right is playing the wounded victim, with this as an example of Jews using the power of government to oppress Christians.

On that later point, we need to be clear what a First Amendment violation actually is.

A Congressman saying: “Your post sucks and you should delete it” isn’t a violation.

A Congressman saying: “Your post sucks and you should delete it or you will face legal consequences” is a a violation.

If a simple opinion without the backing of force is a violation, then any Congressman who wishes people a Merry Christmas is in violation for creating a official state religion.  Without any weight of enforcement behind it, it’s just a person opinion which everyone, including Congressmen, are entitled to.

But back to the main point.

One of the most salient features of American Exceptionalism is our lack of sectarian conflict.

Compared to Europe or Asia, with theor thousands of years of religious wars, America has lived in religious harmony.

I’d like to keep it that way.

This is an issue of cultural sensitivity, or lack there of, where each side feels slighted.

Christians, for being called bigots for professing an article of faith.

Jews, for being told (one again) that were wrong, bad, and going to hell.

The Left already hates the Jews.  I don’t want the mainstream Rught to adopt the alt-Right Naziesque Jew-hating position that ‘the Jews are attacking Christianity.’

Rather than retreat to extremes, can we understand the situation in context.

 

Spread the love

Why I own guns – Naziesque Christian Nationalists

This post in response tona thread I posted.

 

This is the Hitlarian argument: “The minority of Jews are oppressing us and now we’re justified in exterminating them, we’re the majority after all.”

This is the bad side of Christian Nationalism.

This is the attitude that has kept do many Jews out of the Right.

I understand that this is not the opinion of the majority of Christians.

But this Hitlarisn bullshit is why I own guns.

Spread the love

I’m a boomer Fudd now, I guess

I went to a USPSA match last night after work.

I showed up in my usual competition gear: a Bianchi gunbelt, and Blade-Tech holster and mag pouches.

It’s served me well for years.

I was running a SIG P320 with a fiber optic front sight and adjustable rear.  Limited minor was my classification.

I was the oldest competitor there, at 40.

Everyone else was running battle belts with MOLLE attachments and Cobra buckles, retention holsters, guns with red dots and weapon lights. They had fixed blase knives, blowout kits, and tourniquets. Everything in Multicam.

Two guys were in training plate carriers and bump helmets.

I was prepared for a friendly shooting competition.

They looked like Delta about to raid a cave in Afghanistan.

I didn’t know this was the new standard.

I felt like such a boomer Fudd.

 

Spread the love