It’s been an exciting time in New Jersey. Good, bad, and indifferent. The rollercoaster that we’ve all been dealing with has been plenty to keep the hearts racing and all the patriots energized. From the passage and enactment of dunce Danielsen’s so-called “carry-killer” bill, to two separate temporary restraining orders, a slam-dunk of a preliminary injunction, and then that progress to only end up slowed by a stay of the injunction from the Third Circuit Court. A small glimmer of hope that’s not litigation-related is that the state has brought up some changes that are coming down the line concerning the permit to carry application process.
A recent directive from the Attorney General, Matt “Stuart” Platkin, revolved around him forcing the data mining of permit information. The AG is forcing issuing authorities to report about permit numbers. The silver lining to the announcement was that this ratting program is temporary until the state implements the electronic system, which will do the data collection for him – naturally.
An electronic system? That’s right. Hopefully the new system will get rid of many of the burdens that have been associated with the application process, up to and including cutting out unwarranted delays from issuing authorities.
One of the questions I had about the system is if it’s going to disallow issuing authority from unlawfully altering permits to carry. I’ve received a number of reports from permit to carry holders who have been issued their permits without court involvement, and they’re saying departments are still putting firearm restrictions on the permits. Things like relegating the permit to being only valid for the firearm that an individual qualified with are still taking place.
The problem with police chiefs and issuing authorities engaging in such practices is that they do not have the statutory power to do such things. The new permits to carry don’t even have an option to put a “restriction” on them, yet some departments are taking it upon themselves – or as I’ve heard from certain persons that county prosecutors are illegally making these directives to towns – to do so regardless. This situation, that of issuing authorities trying to restrict permits, is very ripe for litigation and I look forward to seeing some pee pee’s getting slapped around once the smoke clears from the permitting drams.
I reached out to Attorney General “Stuart Plattykins” to see if I could get an opinion on the topic. To be perfectly fair, I have been less than kind to the AG in my words about him over the years, but I have been getting a good amount of comments/replies/no comments from the office to things they wish to reply to, when I query them.
My correspondence dated June 16, 2023:
Attention Office of Attorney General:
I’m writing because I’d like to follow up with the Attorney General’s office on something I am reporting on. I’m a freelance writer at a number of online sites and cover Second Amendment related news (bylines in signature block).
Recently the Attorney General issued out Directive 2023-02.
My question about the permit to carry application process revolves around the forthcoming electronic system. Under the new system, are issuing authorities going to be able to have the ability to edit/adjust permits to carry when they’re printed? As you know, the police chiefs and issuing authorities do not have the statutory power to issue permits to carry with restrictions on them. I have several readers that have informed me that they are receiving police chief issued permits to carry – after the judges were dropped from the application process – with restrictions on them, limiting them on what firearms they may carry. This practice is unlawful.
Is the new process that’s going to be implemented going to stop that practice?
Are the permits going to be sent to the departments with orders to just print them, or are local PDs still going to have to generate them?
What’s the likelihood of the state adopting the practice of printing the permits to carry on plastic cards the size of a standard driver’s license?
Any insight on the forthcoming system would be greatly appreciated. My readers would love to know about what the process is going to be like in the future.
Crickets. So I followed up on June 22, 2023 asking for a comment. Nothing.
It finally came to me the other day. Platkin’s office is too busy to reply because he’s being a little bitch. Let’s take a look at one of his latest whining tweets:
I'm tired of hearing people tell me about what's good for public safety - people who want guns in our schools, guns in our parks, and guns in the hands of domestic violence offenders.— Attorney General Matt Platkin (@NewJerseyOAG) June 27, 2023
Rest assured, most of our law is back in effect to keep guns out of places they don't belong. pic.twitter.com/hswyvM0E43
Apparently Stuart has his panties all in a bunch about being told how to handle “the situation” around firearm possession. News flash, he’s not winning here, otherwise he’d not be lashing out like a baby. The attorney general and the governor are both in over their heads when it comes to this litigation and the carry-kill law that’s been enacted is indefensible.
NYSRPA v. Bruen made it clear that public safety and what people like Plattykins think has nothing to do with lawful firearm regulation. Straight up, they need to come up with historical analogues, and good ones at that. They don’t have them. Platikin and his team will hit China before they dig up an analogue that supports the unconstitutional policies that he’s enforcing. Reminder Platkin, this is a civil right you’re messing with, so enforcing a law that is against a civil liberty is quite a “no no,” beyond making you morally repugnant.
We’ll let Murphy’s little lap dog bitch run his mouth. It’s a sign they know they’re losing. As for the new system that’s going to be instituted, it should be an improvement over what we have now. I’m just disappointed that Platkin is too busy to weigh in on whether or not he’s going to allow the illegal behavior of issuing authorities continue. I doubt he’s going to man up and actually enforce the portions of the law that don’t suit his bitchness. He certainly can’t say he hasn’t been warned of the practice.