Jump to content
joejaxx

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

Recommended Posts

More bad news, on November 1 Judge Wall dismissed with prejudice the claims of Jeffrey M. Muller, the guy who was kidnapped and beaten by the gang and then still denied his permit. I can only assume it is because the state finally granted his permit after numerous appeals, no doubt to intentionally remove him from this suit.

 

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.njd.249720/gov.uscourts.njd.249720.37.0.pdf

 

Not surprising. The real two questions are when will the case make it to the Supreme Court and what will be the Court's makeup at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He applied after but was denied multiple times due to insufficient need. After multiple appeals and only AFTER filing this suit, the state finally gave him his permit in order to make the case go away. Since Judge Wall also wants the case to go away, he is happily going along with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge signed the order dismissing Mueller. But if you look closely, it's a "stipulation" of dismissal, meaning the plaintiff attorney agreed to the dismissal. It had to happen because the granting of the permit to Mueller makes his claim moot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's ok for NJ to restrict guns because it could cause death to other people & Conceal Carry is a privilege... Wow! But it's ok that over 600 people are killed by cars in NJ every year. That "privilege is ok and the burden is bearable to the public. I wonder what type of security this judge receives from the Marshall service. Do as I say not as I do BS. This "judge" is legislating from the bench.

 

I can't tell you how angry I am at this "judge" even though we knew what his ruling was going to be. He needs to learn that legislating from the bench & denying our inalienable rights makes him a criminal.... Now on too happy thoughts.. let me look at houses in Texas..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another judge making up his own stuff as he (or she) goes. Go figure. Judging based on his on opinion outside of law, is illegal. He should have recused himself for a blatant conflict of interest, or should have been asked to recuse himself by the plaintiff. The only way to win is to beat them at their own game. Unfortunately the odds are stacked against you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, in their home, shall not be infringed."

 

*Some restrictions apply. Not available in CA, IL, NJ, NY, or HI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not directly related, but very interesting: http://baltimore.cbs...constitutional/

 

I read that last week and believe that is "good news" for us in NJ...I think. It sounds like the same BS "red tape/hoops" in order to get a carry permit, which we know is next to impossible in NJ as well in MD. I really hope this makes a difference and gets 'SAF' moving again in NJ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that last week and believe that is "good news" for us in NJ...I think. It sounds like the same BS "red tape/hoops" in order to get a carry permit, which we know is next to impossible in NJ as well in MD. I really hope this makes a difference and gets 'SAF' moving again in NJ.

 

SAF is one of plaintiffs in the case referenced in this thread. The lower court ruled in NJ's favor and the case has been appealed. They are moving currently, but the courts aren't exactly speedy (though I would argue that they are speedier than if we were waiting for the legislature to start respecting our rights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please for all of the new people here, please don't post to this thread being many of us have alerts turned on and when someone posts here it gets a lot of people excited, now stop that please.

 

Ok now, nothing new, nothing to see, hopefully the next post will be a real update, until then as you were.. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the State of NJ filed it's paperwork for the appeal yesterday, and the new NJ AG still says the 2A is a 'privilege'.

 

Good news. That should admit your State into America. Where there is not a single right under the Constitution, only privileges. Despite the flowery language judges like to throw around to keep us asleep.

 

If you want real rights, that government cannot infringe upon, you need to move to Europe, Canada, or a few other places. Of course, the firearms "privileges" are less in these places, but the firearms "rights" are pretty much the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked up a copy of the ANJRPC news and briefs, pamphlet they put out, yesterday and the front page had a story about this case. Basically how NJ shut the door on this case. I briefly read it and got disgusted and threw it down, I didn't check to ensure it was a current up-to-date copy.

 

Anyone else read this, or am I thinking of an entirely different case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I picked up a copy of the ANJRPC news and briefs, pamphlet they put out, yesterday and the front page had a story about this case. Basically how NJ shut the door on this case. I briefly read it and got disgusted and threw it down, I didn't check to ensure it was a current up-to-date copy.Anyone else read this, or am I thinking of an entirely different case?
The summary from anjrpc's website http://www.anjrpc.org/ . "The case is currently before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals,one step away from the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision from the Third Circuit is anticipated by early next year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're getting there guys!

 

SAF WINS HUGE VICTORY FOR CARRY IN ILLINOIS

 

For Immediate Release:   12/11/2012

 

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation has won a huge victory for the right to bear arms outside the home, with a ruling in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that declares the right to self-defense is “broader than the right to have a gun in one’s home.”

 

The case of Moore v. Madigan, with Judge Richards Posner writing for the majority, gives the Illinois legislature 180 days to "craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment…on the carrying of guns in public.”

 

Later, Judge Posner adds, “To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinion has some good language in it for the cause, but does not examine N.J. justifiable need criteria as a predicate to a carry permit. The closest it comes is commentary on NY law and a suggestion that the historical analysis of the NY Second Circuit Court of Appeals on right to carry outside the home is deficient. That commentary may be of value in the fight we are waging here. The real key is to get our cases decided by the Third Circuit and the US Supreme Court, if necessary, before a sitting conservative justice dies or retires and the President has a right to appoint of a liberal. Timing is everything in life, and even more so here.

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...