Here is the best write up on this christie pandering gun commission thing its basically smoke and mirrors without any meaningful change

First, let me state that, overall, this report is a big step in the right direction for NJ. Although I am about to criticize the report in some respects, the commission and Governor Christie, there are meaningful improvements, if (that’s a big if) Christie follows through with implementing the recommendations.
Second, the report is very limited in scope. I was hoping to see more. The commission focused on three issues only: permitting delays, transportation and justifiable need. Those are the three biggest issues, however, there are many more areas that need to be addressed that are important, the definition of substantially identical, waiving the NICS check at the point of sale if you have a permit that required a background check, reciprocity agreements, just to name a few. Oh yeah, pardon Brian Aitken (Brian Aitken’s sentence was commuted. He was not pardoned).
Third, I am disappointed that there was no opportunity for input from the public and from 2A organizations other than ANJRPC. The NJ2AS videos were referenced, but those were public. To my knowledge, neither Christie nor his commission sat down with anyone other than ANJRPC. Perhaps there would be more enthusiasm about the report if others had a chance for input. The secretive manner in which the review was conducted does not instill confidence.
Next, regarding the section on delays and illegal additional requirements, the report is spot-on, detailed and damning in its criticisms. However, I feel that it falls short in its recommendations, merely recommending the creation of a standard procedure and making the waiting times public in an annual report. The commission obviously had some accomplished attorneys and did a great analysis, but they committed one particular glaring amateurish error. They completely missed that there is already an SOP covering the firearms permitting process, the NJSP Firearms Applicant Investigation Guide. Incredibly, the Christie Administration, through the AG’s office has been fighting for four years in court with NJ2AS to keep that guide a secret. So, one of their recommendations already exists in the form of the guide; and, therefore, the guide, by default, either contains illegal requirements or it is not being followed, and Christie has been trying to burry that fact for years. The commission makes no mention of the guide or if the directives within encourage the illegal behavior that we have seen. That leads to the second point, which is accountability. Although the commission does a great job of identifying the illegal behavior and confirming that it is, in fact, happening and is commonplace, the report makes no recommendations involving the people that are responsible for these illegal and immoral actions, many of those actions being actual policies and procedures at the municipal PD and NJSP barracks level. At a minimum there are individuals that should receive some type of disciplinary action for failing to do their jobs. In some cases, there should be criminal charges, where personnel knowingly created illegal delays and requirements. Some of those individuals should be charged with Official Misconduct, a second degree crime with a mandatory sentence. I’m glad that this part of the report is accurate, and it is good to see the real problems identified and acknowledged, but it is frustratingly incomplete because of the lack of recommendation addressing accountability. Also, this section of the report is equally damning of Christie’s inaction up to this point. It is, in and of itself, an admission of how obtuse Christie has been for the last six years, otherwise these problems, which we have been telling him (and the legislature) about for years would have already been fixed. It is not unreasonable to be sceptical and to think that perhaps he is only now addressing these problems because he is trying to win the NH Primary.
Regarding the transportation issue, that seems to be described accurately and the recommendations seems to be appropriate. We’ll see what the final product (the AG guidelines) look like. I am hoping that it says “…including, but not limited to…” rather than “…reasonable is…” – big difference.
The justifiable need section is another story altogether. It is both encouraging and frustrating – encouraging because we now know that it is, in fact, possible to redefine “justifiable need” with an Executive Order and a subsequent change to the Administrative Code and it is nice to see an incremental improvement, however small. Encouraging in that it opens up the possibility of a future Executive Order to define “serious threat.” That, by itself, could turn out to be a more meaningful change than we currently realize. For example, I could see a three part test in an AG letter that would serve as guidance to Police Chiefs during the carry permitting process that, maybe, would be picked up by the courts. It could look something like this: In order to determine if a threat is a “serious threat” Chiefs of Police shall use the following three part test: 1. Does the threat described have the potential to cause death or great bodily harm to the applicant or other innocent people? 2. Has the threat described manifested previously anywhere in the United States which would suggest that it could in NJ or, if there is no historical example of the threat, is it plausible that the threat may manifest itself in NJ based on credible information? 3. Can the applicant protect himself or other innocent people from the described threat if he/she were armed and met the other qualifications outlined in the permitting statute? If all three tests are met, then the threat is a “serious threat.” There is probably a better way to say it, buy you get the point.
Having said all of that, this part of the report is frustrating because the recommendation did not go far enough to make an immediate, measurable difference – if an improvement is the the result, it will take time to materialize and probably only after further legal battles, which will probably result in a court decision nullifying any improvements that were realized. Right now, the AG in VA is nullifying all of their reciprocity agreements. How is it that liberals are so bold, and conservatives are so reluctant? I understand the commissions approach, which was to find something in the original court opinion (Siccardi) that would open the door to more individuals being qualified without going against the statute or the case law, but, even though that is an impressive find, I think that it is too conservative of an approach. The statute allows the Superintendent of State Police to promulgate rules and regulations regarding firearms permitting. I am sure there would be an ensuing legal battle, but so what. There is valid legal argument that he has the authority – make them fight for it. Additionally, I am troubled by the supportive language in the report of the justifiable need standard and what seems like an attempt to keep it by bringing it just under a perceived intermediate scrutiny threshold. That’s a baffling position to take. I suppose one possible explanation is to make the anti-gun people feel better about the report, but that is kind of hard to believe considering that, as we all witnessed, the Christie Administration defended justifiable need so fervently in the Drake case. The report both criticizes the standard and then seeks to bolster it at the the most offensive level possible while remaining just barely constitutional (supposedly). I’m still scratching my head over that one. If you know nothing of this recent history regarding Christie’s actions and inaction, you would read this report and think that these are sincere efforts, but if you know the stance Christie has taken and the extent to which he has defended it (defending justifiable need in the Drake case and fighting to keep the guide secret in the NJ2AS OPRA case, failing to make meaningful changes earlier, exempting SOP’s from OPRA, etc.), when you read the report, you can only conclude that this is merely an effort to win over NH in the Republican Primary with whatever is barely enough to convince the uninformed.
So, here we finally have some good behavior from someone who has not historically done the right thing regarding gun rights… only recently, the last five years or so, starting with commuting Brian Aitken’s sentence, Sep, 2010. Some are suggesting that we be careful about punishing this new good behavior. I don’t find myself in that camp. There is so much more on the line than just what will happen in NJ over the next two years. I think we all know if Governor Christie is sincere or not. We all know what he has to gain from this. We all know, that in all likelihood, as soon as he gets what he wants, we will be cast aside and if the next Governor is a Democrat, everything will be undone and more. How many times does that have to happen before we (gun owners in NJ) learn our lesson? Dealing with Christie (and Sweeney, for that matter) is like getting pushed out of a boat into freezing cold water, and then being thrown a life preserver by the same person who pushed you over. You’re grateful for the life preserver – you certainly would rather have it than not – but you’re still in a perilous situation and the guy who threw it to you is still a dick – and it would be silly to conclude that he now cares about you. It is possible that he is a changed man, but, for me, it will take a lot more convincing. If I were a NJ resident, which I am, I would continue to try to convince Christie to make more positive changes. If I were a NH resident, or any other state, and gun rights was important to me, there is no way I would ever vote for Chris Christie in the upcoming primary. The things that will matter most for preserving and restoring the Second Amendment in this country would be in jeopardy with him as President. Just look at what he has done where it mattered long term – in the courts. Look at the cases he has defended and the arguments he presented; look at the AG’s, and the Prosecutors and the Judges he has appointed. He re-appointed the same Prosecutor that put Brian Aitken in prison, after commuting his sentence. Think about that. I think the likelihood of Christie appointing a conservative Federal Court Judge or Supreme Court Justice or Attorney General, or head of the ATF is only slightly higher than zero and that is where the fate of the Second Amendment resides.