Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Those living in "may issue" States like Cali, NJ

What do you foresee in your future?

I'm fortunate to live in one of the many rural counties in CA that have no issue granting a carry permit. Local Sheriff knows the deal here, could be a 45-60 minute response time for one of the deputies to arrive depending on where in the county they happen to be.

But, the State requires certain things like a class and qualifying every two years now (used to be longer I believe). A couple of years back they made the training requirement more stringent. Which of course means more expensive. And qualifying requires


https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/....xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=26165.

which means more expense given the high cost of ammo (notwithstanding availability, especially in CA where mail order to individuals is not allowed).

I fully expect Gavin and cronies to attempt to make it even harder, perhaps a minimum # or rounds in training, lengthening the courses for initial and renewal, charging more for the DOJ background checks, shortening the permit to one year, etc etc etc.

Which of course will mean more law suits given the recent Ruling.

MA, NJ, NY, HI, etc................what do you folks think will happen there now that like CA the States will be required (shall, not may) to grant permits/licenses?

I lived in NJ back 1958-1985 and to get a pistol period was a major undertaking and [b]you could not carry[/b]. You needed a firearm ID card which was state issued and involved fingerprints and an FBI background check. TO get a pistol to take back and forth to the range it required you have a firearm ID card and a permit from the local police chief which was usually given after a 3 month wait . It also involved a background check more fingerprinting for each one as I recall and you had to have the permit with you when traveling back and forth from a range.


I see court battles and cities instituting their own laws as usual.

Yes on the cities trying to institute their own regs. San Jose is already trying, if they haven't already, get a law requiring extra liability insurance just to possess guns in your home.

The city rulers in San Francisco and LA must be crapping in their drawers right now just over the recent news. Wait until they start passing laws that get shot down almost immediately (in legal terms) .

I forsee states just raising the fees and make renewals time short to get a permit just to try to descourage and make it difficult for people who qualify for conceled carry permits.

Is Maryland one of the "may issue" States?

It is in today’s ruling by the Supreme Court that cannot pull that stunt. In so many words.

Oh, I think that's what I'm trying to find out from folks that live in those other States.

In CA, that stunt will be pulled, and it will involve multiple cartwheels and hoops to jump through that will have to be decided in the Courts, starting at the State level, then the Fed individual courts, then the 9th Circuit if they pursue it that far or further.

They will test the wording in the Ruling to the limit.

just renewed my FL permit for another 7 years. In FL, it's all about the State revenue stream.

I am on my phone and can’t search it well, but I think Justice Thomas was very direct about this and slammed the door on the states trying that. Someone here probably can go right to it and post it up. Please.

Who knows what Lord Murphy will try and do! Whatever he does I hope he gets bitch slapped hard. I'm looking for to getting a concealed carry permit, next up, suppressors.

Up until three years ago I lived in NY State. In NY, beyond the blanket requirement that you have a permit to buy/own/carry/possess in any way a handgun, issuing discretion has been left in the hands of county judges forever. In many (more liberal) counties, judges had been taking it upon themselves to dream up restrictions on who could have a permit and what restrictions on that permit they would place. Some examples (and I'm not sure these are currently true) in Ulster County, they would restrict people to 3 handguns. The rational was the only legitimate purpose for having a handgun is target shooting and you need .22, .38 and .45 for bullseye competition. At one time, in Oneida County, permits were stamped on the back with a big SRO (supervised range only.) In Onondaga county they wouldn't allow people to carry concealed (although I have friends from there who have no such restriction.) In St. Lawrence County, where I'm from originally, we always had carry concealed permits until a liberal judge got elected and decided to cut that schitt out and placed "outdoor use such as hunting or berry picking but not concealed carry in town." My last one there still said concealed carry, but they were pulling that when you renewed. Since then, they've elected a new judge and his platform was primarily just that he was going to approve concealed carry for anyone. Before mine was pulled, we moved to Oswego County where I was able to transfer in and got concealed carry because that's what I had. I think there, and a number of other counties, they'd let you have concealed carry if you took a course. When we moved to South Carolina I had to take a course (1 day for veterans, 2 days for non-veterans) to get a CCW license, but they got it to me pretty fast. By contrast, when I got my original permit in NY there was no course or anything and it took about 4 weeks to get it. Oh, and a big sticking point for a lot of people, NYS pistol permits are not valid for carrying a pistol in NY City and, I think, that was part of what led up to this SCOTUS case (in addition to politicians deciding on an arbitrary basis who can or can not carry a handgun.) Also in NYS, they keep track of all your handguns. You've got to go through a process to buy and sell them and they get put on or taken off your permit accordingly.

This is what will happen. The Bureauocrats die hard.

I never worried about laws, when it comes to this issue.

Other than your family and the weather for offshore fishing...........................



do you worry about much?

Probably if I lived in TX, at least the majority of it, I wouldn't worry much either.

I just read quickly through Thomas' opinion and could not find a passage that would seem to meet what you're looking for. Perhaps, as it was 68 pages long or so on my PDF reader, I missed it. There was this though, on the second to last page:


in which he mentions "certain reasonable and well-defined restrictions" but does not elaborate on the definition of those terms.

Maybe someone else can find what you're looking for, someone with less tired eyes.

Living here, now for the past 5 years and previously for many more, all I can say is that experience shows the azzhats in office will push those "reasonable and well-defined" restrictions to the limit and they will be tested in court again and again.

Just set the Forrest on fire

Live in a shall issue county. Permitting process is already very lengthy giving budget and manpower constraints placed on Sheriff Dept. Now Imagine every yahoo running to submit an application.

That's how Freedom despising Demonrats get you, bureaucracy.

A member of a local hunters forum tried to call gov. Beaver Teeth Murphy's office yesterday, and found the phone system to be shut down.
He's a coward of the first order.

I am pretty sure one of the Justice's opinion said conditions cannot be placed upon a person's ability to exercise their constitutional rights. I don't know if that was part of the ruling or just part of that Justice's opinion. Don't know if it carries any weight.

Read the quote in my post above. It's directly from Justice Thomas' opinion.

" subject to certain reasonable, well-defined restrictions."