Remember a few months ago when ISIS threatened US service members and their families?  Well I took it upon myself to take the threat somewhat serious and I applied for a CCW, and it was denied.  For those of you who do not know, NJ gun laws are in the top 5 strictest in the nation.  
 
The state has a "justifiable need" where I have to prove that I was publicly threatened (which I printed the US Army bulletin outlining the threat, and the State Police bulletin that said the same thing) and it wasn't specific enough for me to carry.  Its kind of like "your not allowed to carry an umbrella until AFTER it rains", or "you don't need a parachute until you have fallen out of the plane."  In any case here is a video which I think will outline the lunacy of NJ gun laws.
 
Its thought among NJ bureaucrats, that a thug will verbally threaten you - do you no harm, allow you to go home and apply for a CCW, so if he sees you again then its fair game.  So they won't allow you to carry until AFTER you have been threatened.   (I guess me and other service members being threatened wasn't enough) 
 
So despite everyone telling me I will fail, I figured I had nothing to loose if that was the case anyway right?  
 
Here is some excerpts from my Justifiable need letter:

As written in the Constitution of the United States of America, I am endowed by my creator with the unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  As a commissioned officer of the United States Army for 18 years (and of the State of NJ) whom has faithfully defended the US Constitution and all of its amendments, my right to life has now been publicly threatened by various terrorist organizations (see attached e-mail from the Office of Emergency Management of the US Army & NJ State Police bulletin).
 
While serving overseas I was provided with the means to defend myself and my fellow soldiers.  I am now defenseless in a state that I have served faithfully for almost 2 decades.   Since I and my family have now been publicly threatened, I am in fear of my life and now justified to protect myself from any armed assailant or terrorist organization that has shown the gruesome depths that they will go to do to kill soldiers.
 
It is shown that terrorist organizations will attack soldiers in broad daylight and murder by any means at their disposal (22 May 2013 – Murder of Lee Rigby, 22 October 2014 – Patrice Vincent), so I have to maintain a heightened state of awareness.  I have easily identifiable features such as a short military regulation haircut, a post decal - a required sticker emblazoned on the windshield of my vehicles that states I am a Govt employee and where I work, which then I could be followed and attacked at any place at any time, like picking up my daughters from day care.
 
Either through direct confrontation or abduction, I could be used as a bargaining chip to which the US Government will not negotiate with terrorists and my life will be ended in horrific fashion and uploaded to various social media platforms for my wife and two very young daughters to watch, and to inspire more shock and awe acts of terrorism here in the US.  
 
I ask to lawfully give me the ability to keep my family safe outside of my home and in the state I have lived in all my life.  The army has trained me for many years on safe firearms practices, experience, and rules of engagement.  Since the Supreme court ruled that individuals have no right to expect protection from the police (Castle Rock V. Gonzales, No. 04-278) and the police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals (Warren v. District of Columbia), I am solely responsible for my own immediate safety, and the safety of my family when outside of my home in NJ.  

  
Everyone I know told me it was a lost cause, and I accepted this.  However I am not one to give up without even trying.  I knew I didn't have a "specific threat" until that ISIS threat actually came out, so I figured I would run with it, and I did.  Promptly shot down.  So I now have 30 days to appeal the decision - which didn't even make it to the court system, the state police agency turned it down.
 
The process required forms in triplicate, notarized, letters of recommendations, (other actual legit background checks), passport photos, NRA pistol safety courses ($200), range qualification scores ($100), and the actual cost of the application itself which went from $20, up to $50 MID APPLICATION
 
So to the rest of you in the other 40some states, ENJOY your second amendment freedoms.  I hope you appreciate how sweet they really taste.  
 
 

I take it judging by your post that you're in the military and cannot just simply move?

yea I am sorry for you that is crap this country is in the crapper !!!!

I just got finished reading the other carry thread.  I didn't even see it while typing this up, probably would have posted it there had I noticed it, but this is more of the denial of that same constitutional right that those thread members are exercising (even if some other forum members don't agree).  
 
It was hard to choke down the reality that I will never be able to fully protect my family to the best extent that I can because I am not allowed to carry the tools to do so.  What good is a mechanic without tools?  
 
Some in the other thread said firearms are a tool & I completely agree.  Weapons are tools.  Some will disagree, but the fundamentals are there.  You "can" kill someone with your bare hands right?  If I kick and stomp on someone they could die.  I could also open a coconut if I kicked and stomped on it (theoretically).  But, if I take a tool - say a hammer and beat on the coconut, its opened MUCH faster.  a tool is defined as: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.  That particular function is throwing projectiles at a high rate of speed.
 
If someone is attacking me, I could beat them to death with my bare hands.  What if that person is armed?  He now has a tool to use against me.  A hammer is a tool to put nails in.  A screwdriver is a tool to put screws in.  (both could be used as weapons as well)  A firearm is a tool to throw a projectile at high speeds.  We all know what happened on that fateful BC day when David threw a projectile right?  He won.
 
Where you direct that projectile and why you send that projectile is where things get complicated.  A slingshot can throw a projectile (also illegal in NJ), but when someone is running down on you, you can't exactly pull out your slingshot, load a 3/8" steel bearing and let it fly as easily as un-holstering a sidearm and pulling a trigger - with the same effect assuming both make contact with the aggressors head.  Both are tools, but the firearm is a far better and more efficient tool for eliminating threats.  That makes many people uneasy.    Is it easier to hunt and kill a dear with an AR-15, over a bow and arrow right?  Firearms were the next stage in tool evolution.  
 
Native American's used the bow and arrow (a tool to them) to hunt.  Gunpowder proved to be the next advancement and gave us flatter trajectories, higher velocities of a projectile, (not until "recently") the ability to fire multiple projectiles continuously, and another important benefit...standoff distance.  With a firearm you can take out a dangerous predator at a safe distance (be it a 2 legged, or 4 legged) and keep trying until that danger is in close proximity to you.  A 120 lbs woman with a gun can drop a 300 lbs linebacker outside of his arms reach.
 
Now if I am attacked I only have my own body and whatever tool at arms length to dispatch said aggressor.  As for the anti gun folks, how do you stop someone with a gun intent on causing you harm?  You call the cops.  Why? because cops have guns and you dont.  Facts are facts - people with guns (cops) are always called to end situations started by other people with guns, unless a weapon malfunction or they run out of bullets and they can be subdued.  
 
The only way to stop someone with a gun, is to use a gun on them (or allow your body to be a bullet stop).  So why do you think pro-gun people feel the way they do?  How long does it take the cops to come to you.  Minutes right?  How fast can you un-holster a weapon and send a 9mm projectile traveling @ 1100fps down?  Seconds.  That is why they carry.  The cool headed keen sense of surrounding allow you to avoid confrontation, but if the thug wants to kill you, you are the only one who can stop them right then and there.  
 
There used to be a saying we used overseas, something like the enemy has more say-so about the fight then we do.  Meaning that they will choose the time and place of the ambush, all we can do is prepare ourselves for it.  Keen observation and a cool head are great for everyone, but that won't neutralize the threat if your getting shot at.  Return a heaver volume of more accurate fire is the only way - or running, which could still get you shot in the back.
 
Sorry for the long rant.  My desire to carry to protect my family outside my home is now denied so I am as defenseless as the anti-gun people who choose not to exercise their constitutional right.
 
 

srtie4k
I take it judging by your post that you're in the military and cannot just simply move?

Is there anything simple about moving?  I have a home, kids in school etc.  Plus you could carry in this state at one point.  The Constitution was written and signed around 80 miles from my house.  You could keep and bear arms back then.  I don't know when exactly NJ rights were chipped away over the years, but why should I have to move when a few miles down the road in PA they can carry?  What makes them any different from us? 
 
Moving isnt the answer (though I will likely retire out of state to a more gun friendly state),its about your rights under the second amendment.

nateman_doo

srtie4k
I take it judging by your post that you're in the military and cannot just simply move?

Is there anything simple about moving?  I have a home, kids in school etc.  Plus you could carry in this state at one point.  The Constitution was written and signed around 80 miles from my house.  You could keep and bear arms back then.  I don't know when exactly NJ rights were chipped away over the years, but why should I have to move when a few miles down the road in PA they can carry?  What makes them any different from us? 
 
Moving isnt the answer (though I will likely retire out of state to a more gun friendly state),its about your rights under the second amendment.

For the value of your home you can move elsewhere and get a better home in a better state.  I grew up most my life in NJ and moved to WA and I wish I had moved here when I was a kid.  I studied in the environmental sciences at Rutgers and NJ has the most number of toxic waste sites, not proportional to its size, just in sheer quantity.  It truly has earned the name of being the cancer state.  Even people living up in Sussex county have had their water supplies contaminated with PCE, an odorless liquid that quickly causes cancer.  The mouth of every river also has enough toxic contaminants in the sediments to eventually kill you just by touching it since the contaminants are lipid soluble and carcinogens.  Do the right thing and move your family out of that state.

I didn't know it was that bad there Nateman. I have relatives that live in the state, but their not gun people. You would think that our military members would catch a bit of slack. I mean you go through the training and all. If people can satisfy requirements, I don't understand why they couldn't be allowed this right.

I'd rather take my chances in the Bronx or Road Island vs NJ.....

AnonymousGuy
Courts are fortunately starting to sway against states like yours who insist on may-issue.  I find democrats amusing...they'll use arguments like "but 20 other states have blocked the death penalty / allow marijuana / assisted suicide / abortion / whatever else is on the agenda" so we should too.  Meanwhile 40+ states are shall-issue and they conveniently ignore that majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_State_Concealed_Carry.png
 
"Oh hey yeah about your first amendment rights...yeah you can only exercise them underwater".  People would freak the crap out about that but when it comes to a gun, logic just flies out the window.

I honestly don't have a problem with the majority being ignored... This country is not supposed to be run by the majority...

BF3PRO

I honestly don't have a problem with the majority being ignored... This country is not supposed to be run by the majority...

Dont you mean minority? 

Makes me glad to live in the state I do, Michigan being the state. As a matter of fact, sometime next year, they are not even allowed to ask you why you think you need one. As long as you pass the tests and background check, you get it.
Currently, you have to go before a panel, and they get to ask you questions. Once the new bill goes into effect, there is no more board. Once that happens, I am going to apply for mine.

I had a state trooper (also a CPT), and a local cop (NCO), and MP (1LT) as my 3 references.  Still didn't help.  I am most disturbed that it didn't even MAKE it to the judge.  How is a threat against the military not "specific" enough when one is IN the military?  

I am certainly glad to live in Texas which is a "Shall" issue state.  We also have quite a few advantages of having a CHL.  When I go to purchase a new gun, I don't have to endure the background check, I just show my CHL and walk out with my new gun.  Not to mention, that many state troopers will often let you off with a warning for traffic violations if you have one.  That's because they know that you have already been vetted by the state and are known "NOT" to be a criminal.

BF3PRO

nateman_doo

BF3PRO

I honestly don't have a problem with the majority being ignored... This country is not supposed to be run by the majority...

Dont you mean minority? 

No, because tyranny of the majority is BAD... A democracy is where majority rules and there are collective rights, we are a republic. A republic focuses on individual rights. If the majority decides they don't like guns they can't vote to ban them... Our founding fathers were genius... Think about it... How worse off would we be if there was a mob rule here? I hate it that you can't carry and I'm hoping things change, but never ever hope for a majority rule system here... If that happens no more individual rights just collective rights...

What the heck BF3.....I actually agree with you 100% here.