SAF v NJ (MULLER et al v. MAENZA et al)

[Recon Racoon 49]

I'm not even a law student and I could have written a better brief than that garbage.

 

IMO, the judge will rule in the states favor because its New Jersey. Almost everyone is in some body's pocket. It will be sent to an appeals court where we will wait for another couple of months for a decision that could either way if in a Federal Appeals court, or in NJ's favor if its in a NJ Appeals court where we could appeal the appeals decision to the USSC where they decide if they even want to hear the case. If they do and we win then it sets a new juris-precedent that will pave the way for pseudo no issue state law suits across the US.

[ianargent 7]

Isn't this already in a federal court?

[quikz 34]

I believe a significant question now is, will it even go to the SCOTUS? IF it does NOT, we are screwed. The citizens of NJ will be even more screwed out of another Right. But then again, alot of folks in NJ are brain-washed anyways. :thsmiley_deadhorse:

[ianargent 7]

It takes 4 justices and a lot of time and money to bring a case to SCOTUS. None of those conditions seem impossible

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

Isn't this already in a federal court?

I believe it's in U.S. District Court in Newark

[Recon Racoon 49]

I believe it's in U.S. District Court in Newark

This. It won't go Federal until the Appeals process or it goes to the SCOTUS. So until deliberation in September its a state court issue, but during the appeals it can go either state appeals circuit, or Federal Appeals circuit.

[ianargent 7]

Um, US District court is a federal court - hence the US part of the name. Which is what I thought, since the case is essentially a federal civil rights case.

 

I was being lazy and not looking up the case itself

 

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (in case citations, D.N.J.) is the federal district court whose jurisdiction is the state of New Jersey. Cases brought in the District are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

[vjf915 456]

Bravo sir, good job. I THOUGHT that it was a federal court, but was not 100% sure and did not want to state something that wasn't factual.

[Spartiati 63]

My bet is judge grants motion to dismiss. Scotus will take eventually because NJ's argument now isn't that their regulations are reasonable it's that 2a rights with respect carrying a handgun don't extend beyond the home based on Heller/MacDonald. Scotus will have to settle this at some point.

[ianargent 7]

We shall see. He could grant SAF Motion to dismiss... Unlikely but possible.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

This. It won't go Federal until the Appeals process or it goes to the SCOTUS. So until deliberation in September its a state court issue, but during the appeals it can go either state appeals circuit, or Federal Appeals circuit.

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JEFFREY M. MULLER; DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI;

JOHN M. DRAKE; GREGORY C. GALLAHER;

LENNY S. SALERNO; FINLEY FENTON;

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; and

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL

CLUBS, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, in his Official Capacity

as Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; THE

HON. RUDOLPH A. FILKO, in his Official Capacity as

Judge of the Superior Court of Passaic County; THE HON.

EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, in his Official Capacity as Judge

of the Superior Court of Bergen County; THE HON.

THOMAS A. MANAHAN, in his Official Capacity as

Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; COL. RICK

FUENTES, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the

New Jersey State Police; CHIEF FRANK INGEMI, in his

Official Capacity as Chief of the Hammonton, New Jersey

Police Department; CHIEF RICHARD COOK, in his

Official Capacity as Chief of the Montville, New Jersey

Police Department; and PAULA T. DOW, in her Official

Capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey,

Defendants.

[Recon Racoon 49]

So it is a Federal Court? I thought it was only State? Hm, guess I need to brush up on my definitions.

[Live_Free_orDie 1]

So it is a Federal Court? I thought it was only State? Hm, guess I need to brush up on my definitions.

No Problem...just happy to clarify.

[davisac 1]

So, any updates on the case?

[vjf915 456]

Waiting to hear what the judge has to say. Every time someone bumps the thread, all I think is "Maybe we have an early answer!!!"

[I saw nothing 3]

Waiting to hear what the judge has to say. Every time someone bumps the thread, all I think is "Maybe we have an early answer!!!"

 

 

Made you look... sorry, could not resist. BTW, I do the same thing every single day. First thing I do is check this thread and look at the date and time. However, this is NJ and anything in our favor will take forever. If it was a NJ corrupt spending bill it would have been passed and onto the next corrupt bill.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Waiting to hear what the judge has to say. Every time someone bumps the thread, all I think is "Maybe we have an early answer!!!"

 

 

Get me thinking the same thing, I shuold just wait till September and start reading at page 30.

 

Harry

[ianargent 7]

Subscribe to the thread...

[Parikh1234 0]

any news on this? Was at bullet hole and they has a newsletter in the range with something the case getting dismissed? I didnt read the article as I forgot to pick one up on the way out.

[vjf915 456]

I searched, and found that they filed for a motion to dismiss on March 21. I have not found anything other than that.

 

http://anjrpc.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Legal_Motions___Briefs/NJ_AG_Motion_to_Dismiss.pdf

[I saw nothing 3]

So this state is basically saying that you do not have the right to defend yourself outside of your home? I am sure they (state officials) follow these guidelines... (sarcasm)

[dave545 15]

this came from the motion to dismiss the trial, are you kidding me?

"Furthermore, the plaintiff organizations are not directly

affected by the challenged provisions. They have not suffered an

injury to their own interests by the denial to others of the right

to carry a handgun. Nor do they, by their stated purposes

(promotion of the interests of outdoors people and promotion of

Second Amendment rights generally), have a sufficient interest or

link to the challenged provisions."

this is total BS how are they not affected by others not being able to carry a concealed handgun when that is what the whole org is about so every lawful civilian that is denied is a personal blow directly to them

[Spartiati 63]

Nothing new being written here...Yes the state filed a motion to dismiss, we know that already. A judge will read this and make a decision in September...Stop getting me excited by bumping this thread....

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Aaarrrgggg, I looked again, dang it.

 

Harry

[BRaptor 68]

Aaarrrgggg, I looked again, dang it.

 

Harry

 

So, you decided to post and you made ME look!!! Dang-it, quit it!

[BigHayden 77]

Made you look!

[vjf915 456]

I'm gonna **** slap the next person who bumps this for no reason!!

[djg0770 481]

I'm gonna **** slap the next person who bumps this for no reason!!

I hope you **** slap yerself first.

[Steve_G 51]

[n4p226r 105]

http://mobile.nj.com/advnj/db_96837/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7hKvBPSx&src=cat