Jump to content
joejaxx

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

Recommended Posts

well that's not good for the cause

 

WHOMP WHOMP WHOMP

 

Maybe it isn't. Most people would agree that he has a legitimate need. It highlighted the ridiculous nature of New Jersey carry permits. Now that he has one, anti's can say that the permit process is rigorous but fair (b.s. of course). The rest of us need not apply unless we're being hunted down by kidnappers too.

Now that he has been granted a permit, does he lose his standing for the SAF case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it isn't. Most people would agree that he has a legitimate need. It highlighted the ridiculous nature of New Jersey carry permits. Now that he has one, anti's can say that the permit process is rigorous but fair (b.s. of course). The rest of us need not apply unless we're being hunted down by kidnappers too.

Now that he has been granted a permit, does he lose his standing for the SAF case?

 

I see a new business opportunity. For a fee I will attempt to kidnap you, then you can go before the judge to get your carry permit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure NJ will now use Muller as an example of how they do not infringe on 2nd amendment rights, because the permit to carry is issued in cases where it is justified.

 

All it took was to be kidnapped, beaten and escape. Get threatened by members of the kidnappers' gang. Then apply for a CCW, get denied, appeal, get denied again, bring a federal lawsuit against the state, and appeal again, get denied, and appeal one more time before being approved over the course of 18 months. Yes, clearly this falls under any common sense definition of "reasonable" regulation.

 

I look forward to the state defense making that case.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure NJ will now use Muller as an example of how they do not infringe on 2nd amendment rights, because the permit to carry is issued in cases where it is justified.

 

All it took was to be kidnapped, beaten and escape. Get threatened by members of the kidnappers' gang. Then apply for a CCW, get denied, appeal, get denied again, bring a federal lawsuit against the state, and appeal again, get denied, and appeal one more time before being approved over the course of 18 months. Yes, clearly this falls under any common sense definition of "reasonable" regulation.

 

I look forward to the state defense making that case.

 

They'll make that case, and likely succeed. :icon_rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ Exactly. It's proof that a right can ever be based on subjective criteria.

 

Also, this is a civil rights case based on Title 42, Section 1983. His right to bear arms for self-defense was delayed, so he was still harmed because of the "justifiable need" requirement and therefore still has standing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I wonder why the SAF didn't make this argument. If the justifiable need requirement is what the State is going by, and someone does in fact show need, then he needs that permit Right Now. The mere fact that it takes them at least a month to even look at your application proves that the justifiable need is an impossible requirement which they do not take seriously, since you would not be able to get a permit until way after you begin needing it (assuming they approve it initially).

 

All this just means that in order for you to be able to protect yourself in case of need, you would need a permit before the fact (like we have been saying all along). The current requirement is something of a contradiction in terms within the context of the broader set of firearms statutes.

 

The proof for this argument is right here in this case. Finally, eighteen months later, they agree that Muller has need. What the heck was he supposed to be doing to protect himself for the past year and a half?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for them to pass CCW in New Jersey an event would need to happen where a person who was denied a carry permit was either killed or assaulted. I hate to say it like that but how else can I put it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for them to pass CCW in New Jersey an event would need to happen where a person who was denied a carry permit was either killed or assaulted. I hate to say it like that but how else can I put it.

 

No, that would be used as a reason to ban handguns or magazines over 6 rounds or something along those lines. You're trying to use logic. Stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that would be used as a reason to ban handguns or magazines over 6 rounds or something along those lines. You're trying to use logic. Stop.

 

I didn't say he would be shot or even stabbed, but I understand your logic of them NOT using logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get excited, nothing earth shattering. There was a filing on the docket today -- a new Magistrate Judge was assigned to the case, Judge Madline Arleo replaces Judge Cecchi. The case is still assigned to Judge Walls, the district court judge, but is referred to a magistrate. I'm not sure how much is decided by the magistrate judge -- I believe it's just discovery and pretrial issues but the District Court judge decides the case. In any event, based on reviews on the Robing Room (a website that rates judges), Judge Walls is supposed to be a very good and fair Judge and Judge Cecchi a good magistrate. Judge Arleo does not get very positive reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where'd you find the info? I've been searching for news on the case every week but never find anything except in this thread. :unknw:

Some of the members should work the Intelligence Community in the Government. I find information here that I couldn't find if it were staring me in the face.

 

What does this mean, the new magistrate coming on? Is he that horrible and biased, or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can check the docket through the "PACER" system that gives access to all Federal court dockets if you have a password. I set up an alert through Bloomberg so I get an email everytime something is added to the docket (I am a lawyer). You won't find these kinds of minor filings reported in the news. In fact, I doubt anything will be reported in the news until a decision is rendered. I am not a litigator,so I am not exactly sure of the role the magistrate judge plays, but I don't think the replacement of the magistrate judge will be particularly significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK guys I've waited a month to make another post... anything new at all? Anyone have access to this PACER system?

 

Also sorry for bumping it up to the top and getting everyone to click on it, but I know the rest of you are just as eager for information as I am!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...