I assume they WOULD revoke if someone failed the eligibility requirements in Section 25.
But Section 40b defines eligibility to APPLY. I see that as a completely different animal.
EDIT: Actually, 40b doesn't define eligibility to apply. It simply directs the ISP to identify substantiallly similar states. 40c allows APPLICATIONS from residents of those states, and specifies the qualifications that must be met as being defined in Section 25 (which I pasted previously).
Yes, but the primary purpose of the substantially similar language is the mental health reporting aspect. And regardless of whether it's listed explicitly or not, being in a substantially similar state is THE #1 eligibility requirement.
As for the ongoing eligibility requirement vs just an initial application requirement, I see it the same way as us and our FOID cards. They have a day to day method of knowing if we for any reason become ineligible for our CCLs, just as they do with states that maintain up to date mental health status of their residents, where applicable. If that ability to know if someone becomes ineligible due to mental health reasons goes away, they lose their ability to micro-manage everyone who has a CCL.
Don't get me wrong... I disagree with their methods of simply revoking non-resident CCLs.... but the concept of it, I have no problem with, as its essentially holding non-resident CCL holders to the same standards that we are held to with our FOID cards.
FOID card eligibility (which indirectly incorporates mental health requirements), DUIs, etc. are all listed in Section 25. Being from a substantially similar state is not. Furthermore, the statute does NOT require the ISP to conduct daily checks. That is an invention of the ISP.
If they had a way of setting up a camera in your house and watching you 24/7, but couldn't do this for nonresidents, would you object to nonresident licensing because it "isn't fair" that nonresidents don't have cameras installed in their homes? So the answer is to infringe upon everyone equally? IMHO that's a grade school "fairness" mentality.
RKBA is a right protected in the COTUS. We need to chip away at those infringements one at a time. I err toward the side of freedom--wherever it may lead us.
I can only imagine how you feel about a national reciprocity bill (in any form) allowing residents of other states to carry in New Jersey...
Edited by kwc, 16 February 2017 - 01:30 PM.