Party of 6 - action to restore CCW in NJ

[John Willett 70]

Since I dwell in FL a considerable amount I haven't followed this but it's peaked my interest. Is the PO6 trying to prove their justifiable need on their applications or prove justifiable need is silly? Mid the former how does that help broadly? I can see how it helps those six fellows but not everyone else, and in fact just respects the unjust justifiable need. If they are fighting that justifiable need is indeed just another word for no and should be struck down then I can see the mass benefit. However, what do you suggest it gets replaced with? Constitutional carry? While ideal I'd have to say impossible and I'm far from spineless. Maybe make NJ a shall issue state with no clause for justification just proficiency?

 

The CC EO didn't really change anything with regards to CCW. In fact the words that were substituted are tantamount to justifiable need--only they sounded less foreboding. Imminent danger was it? Truth be told I always feel like I'm in imminent danger walking the streets and going to the movies or walking around shopping malls or road ragers all around. I could go on but would any of that work? Nah.

 

So really the only question I'd like to understand is my first one. What's the purpose of the PO6?

 

The group itself appears to be born out of an effort to get a bunch of people to apply for carry permits and get denied.  The purpose of that was to disprove a talking point of the NJ Attorney General's office that most applications are approved.  However, that statistic didn't really have any impact of Drake or other carry cases as the courts keep saying that NJ has the power to regulate the way it does.  We haven't really gotten a serious look at how narrowly tailored NJ's regulation, in my opinion, because they rely on a passage in Heller that says something to the effect of not invalidating "longstanding" prohibitions.  (Edit: For clarity I'm saying the court's havent looked seriously at how narrowly tailored the law is, I think we would all agree that it is certainly not the least restrictive means to promote safety. )

 

It's purpose seems to be to raise money to fund their own case, which in and of itself is fine with me.  However, another ancillary purpose appears to be to cast aspersions on various other groups in the state, and/or their leadership. In fact, while they have announced a partnership with NJ2AS, their about page still trashes them.  In my opinion, the reason they are doing this is to increase the attention they get and raise more money. You can see the amount of conversation the allegations (unsubstantiated hearsay) have caused compared to discussion of the case itself.  Lots of gun owners here are frustrated and they seek to take advantage.  

 

As for the strategy of the case itself, who knows?  The last time I remember asking Almeida about it and getting an actual answer he said something like "that is the lawyers job".   To my knowledge, there isn't a clear strategy that anyone has published.  They promise that their lawyers will hold meetings to relay the strategy.  However, to my mind, Nappen is already pursuing a superior case.  Evan discusses it on the most recent couple of episodes of Gun for Hire Radio. 

[Rob0115 1,105]

The group itself appears to be born out of an effort to get a bunch of people to apply for carry permits and get denied.  The purpose of that was to disprove a talking point of the NJ Attorney General's office that most applications are approved.  However, that statistic didn't really have any impact of Drake or other carry cases as the courts keep saying that NJ has the power to regulate the way it does.  We haven't really gotten a serious look at how narrowly tailored NJ's regulation, in my opinion, because they rely on a passage in Heller that says something to the effect of not invalidating "longstanding" prohibitions.  

 

It's purpose seems to be to raise money to fund their own case, which in and of itself is fine with me.  However, another ancillary purpose appears to be to cast aspersions on various other groups in the state, and/or their leadership. In fact, while they have announced a partnership with NJ2AS, their about page still trashes them.  In my opinion, the reason they are doing this is to increase the attention they get and raise more money. You can see the amount of conversation the allegations (unsubstantiated hearsay) have caused compared to discussion of the case itself.  Lots of gun owners here are frustrated and they seek to take advantage.  

 

As for the strategy of the case itself, who knows?  The last time I remember asking Almeida about it and getting an actual answer he said something like "that is the lawyers job".   To my knowledge, there isn't a clear strategy that anyone has published.  They promise that their lawyers will hold meetings to relay the strategy.  However, to my mind, Nappen is already pursuing a superior case.  Evan discusses it on the most recent couple of episodes of Gun for Hire Radio. 

Thanks for the write up as i don't have tons of time for the research and it appeared to me the main purpose was to support their own justifiable need--which again is fine.  However, I don't find a broad appeal or anything indicting the justifiable need coming from that startegy.  If anything suing to get your NJ CCW by proving justifiable need could, in fact, lend creedence to the requirement.  

[Ramup422 18]

In light of the poor ruling against the 2nd Amendment today by the 9th Circuit court, the Almeida / Tumminelli v. NJ case moves forward and will be filed at the Federal Courts in Newark on Friday, June 10th 2016 by the law firms hired to move the case forward. The 3 law firms involved are out of Pennsylvania, Mississippi and California. The details of the complaint, law firms involved and updates will all be made public for your viewing after the approval on the release of such is obtained by the lead attorney.  This case is being funded 100% by we, the people and our supporters.  To learn more, visit the Party of Six on their FB page or at www.partyofsix.org

Thank you,

Albert Almeida

no quarters given